Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

King's Lynn Docks and Railway Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to he read the Third time.

Greenock Improvement (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PNOVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Bradford Corporation Act, 1910, relating to Bradford Corporation trolley vehicles," presented by Mr. GOSLING; read the First time: and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to he printed. [Bill 164.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.

Mr. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has had under consideration the question of paying to the widow or other dependant of an ex-service man who dies while in receipt of a final weekly allowance the balance of the sum unpaid?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): I have had this matter under consideration, and if my hon. Friend will repeat his question in a fortnight's time, I expect to be able to give him a satisfactory answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PNEUMATIC TOOLS (ALLEGED INJURY TO HEALTH).

Mr. B. SMITH: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the injury to health suffered by men using pneumatic tools; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held into the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I received recently a communication on this subject from the Transport and General Workers' Union, hut no definite evidence of injury has so far been furnished. I will have the matter looked into, but I shall be glad if the hon. Member can supply me with particulars of actual instances of workmen who have suffered injury to health from this cause with a view to facility[...]
inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWEEPSTAKES AND DRAWS.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to an advertisement in the "New Leader" of 23rd May inviting subscriptions to Labour's Calcutta Derby subscription draw; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. HENDERSON: The advertisement appears to relate to the same draw as that to which the hon. and gallant Member drew my attention on the 22nd ultimo, and against the organisers of which the police are taking proceedings.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any action in the matter?

Mr. TURNER: Will proceedings be taken against those people who received money from the draws, including Members of Parliament?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he has taken any action in regard to this particular case?

Mr. HENDERSON: I understood that I answered a question on this very draw some days ago, and intimated that the matter was in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any action against the journal in question, and also against the "Daily Herald," for if he looks at yesterday's "Daily Herald," he will see a large number of advertisements of a similar character?

Mr. B. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police at Scotland Yard usually run sweepstakes, and can he say whether they have run one this year, and, if so, what action he is taking?

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that among the classified advertisements in a daily publication of the 4th June the following draw results were advertised: Amalgamated Society of Brassworkers' Benevolent Fund, Barrow Labour Band Draw, Birkenhead Independent Labour Party, Chatham Branch, N.U.R., Croydon Coal Porters' Derby Sweep, East Fulham Labour Party, Hammersmith L.P. Derby Sweep, H.L.P.I. Holiday Draw Results, Holborn Labour Party Derby Draw, Hounslow Branch, N.U.R., Linford ex-Service Men's Free Derby Competition, Llandaff Ward Labour Party Ballot, Mill Hill Labour Group, National Union of Printing, Bookbinding. Machine-Ruling and Paper Workers' Result, North Southwark Labour Party, N.U.R. Orphan Fund, Essex O.F.C. Derby Sweep, N.W. Central Branch Benevolent Fund, A.S.F. and B. Derby Draw Result, Padiham S.D.F. Whitsuntide Draw, Pianoworkers' Social and Athletic Association Derby Draw Result, Pols, Result of Lowestoft Labour Club Development Fund Derby Prize Draw, S.L.P. Draw, Stapleford and Sandiacre I.L.P. Derby Sweepstake, St, Crispin Sweepstake Result, Tynemouth Labour Party Derby Draw Result, Wimbledon Labour Hall, Vehicle Builders' Shop Committee Prize Distribution, Wallington and District. Result of Motor-cycle Prize Draw, W.C.T. AA. Holiday Draw Result, and West End Drapery Employés' Benevolent Fund; and whether in each of these cases he has taken similar action to that taken in respect of the Otley Sweep; and whether
he proposes to take any action in respect of the paper in which these advertisements appear?

Mr. AYLES: May I ask whether such a question, which could be put down at any time, is in order as a Private Notice Question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I accepted it under the circumstances of to-day, with considerable alteration of the form in which it first reached me.

Mr. LANSBURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether be is aware that advertisements of a similar character have appeared in newspapers for the last 25 or 30 years?

Mr. CLIMIE: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the fact that a Member of this House has won a very large sum of money?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have seen the advertisements to which the noble Lord refers, but was not previously aware of the draws mentioned therein. I do not know whether the police have taken action in any of these cases, but will consider the suggestion in the last part of the question. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I am aware that these advertisements have been appearing for a considerable time in many papers, and it is very difficult to decide where to draw the line. In a previous answer I said that I was going to try to administer the law impartially, irrespective of the character of the political parties concerned.

Viscount CURZON: Can we be assured that the right hon. Gentleman will take in respect. of these sweeps exactly the same action as that which he has taken already in connection with the Otley sweep?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, with regard to the sweeps, but:18 T have already said it is very difficult to decide where to draw the line as far as newspapers are concerned. There is not a single newspaper in the country that does not to-day report the result of one of these draws in which a Member of this House is concerned. Am I to be asked to proceed against the whole of these newspapers for announcing that result?

Mr. LANSBURY: In order that persons who are associated with newspapers may know the actual law, will the hon. Gentleman bring in a Bill to define what is the legal responsibility, in connection with these matters, of those who publish newspapers?

Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that a newspaper which makes a news announcement of the result of a draw commits an offence?

Mr. HENDERSON: I never made any such suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] What I said was that it was very difficult to see where the line could be drawn between a paper that may announce the result of a draw as an advertisement and another paper that may announce the result as news.

Mr. PRINGLE: What was the sense of your remark at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROTHERHITHE DISTURBANCE.

Mr. B. SMITH: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on Thursday, 29th May, at a meeting called by the Rotherhithe Conservative party at the Rotherhithe Town Hall, there appeared a body of people, purporting to he the British Fascisti, armed with ash sticks, who assaulted people, knocked off their hats, and brutally assaulted two young men; and what action is he prepared to take to put a stop to such activities on the part of an organised body which are likely to lead to a breach of the peace?

Mr. HENDERSON: The police are, of course, ready to afford protection to anyone who is assaulted or threatened with assault when they are in a position to do so, but on the occasion in question they bad no knowledge of the assault till afterwards, and I do not see what action on my part could lie taken to prevent the occurrence of such breaches of the peace altogether.

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that these British Fascisti scaled the town hall at Rotherhithe and drilled on the roof prior to coming down and assaulting the people?

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is there any evidence that these young men were noisy or created any disturbance?

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTORISTS (PROSECUTIONS, MITCHAM).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the frequent petty and vexatious prosecutions instituted by the Metropolitan police at Mitcham against the drivers of motor vehicles for technical offences, and to the remarks of the Croydon bench on the case of Sir Howard Frank and, more recently, to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett) in a recent case; and whether steps can be taken to employ the police more usefully in the detection of serious offences rather than in the detection of purely technical offences where in any Court a caution would in all probability have more effect?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am informed that the police are frequently hampered in their work by the illegibility of the identification marks on motor cars. They are fully justified, in my opinion, in taking measures to render the offence less prevalent, and in this they are generally supported by the magistrates.

Viscount CURZON: Will the right lion. Gentleman answer that part of my question in reference to the remarks made by the hon. Member for North Salford, and is he aware that the police in this particular division are continually bringing prosecutions which are equally continually being dismissed, and that they are very petty and vexatious?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid I have nothing further to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORMWOOD SCRUBS PRISON (OFFICERS' DISMISSAL).

Mr. J. GARDNER: 11.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Principal Officer Hamby and Officer Wheeler were dismissed from the service at Wormwood Scrubs Prison for securing their sons employment through the friends of Horatio Bottomley; that the two officials had good records: and that they had nothing to do with smuggling the articles out of the prison to the Press; and, in view of the fact that special facilities were given to the prisoner Bottomley to keep a diary and write articles, which articles were smuggled out of Maidstone and not
Wormwood Scrubs prison by a private individual, will he have further inquiry made into the case of these dismissed officials?

Mr. HENDERSON: These two officers were dismissed for carrying on unauthorised communications with a prisoner's friends, and the other points do not, therefore, arise.

Mr. GARDNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that none of the other persons involved was punished, not even the prisoner Bottomley himself?

Mr. HAYES: Has any inquiry been instituted as to how the documents were obtained from the prison, seeing that as a matter of fact these documents came from another prison and not from the one at which these officers were employed?

Mr. HENDERSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRST OFFENDER, DEAL QUARTER SESSIONS (SENTENCE).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Frederick Walter Baugh, a boy of 15, a first offender, who bore a good character, was recently sentenced to 21 days' hard labour at Deal Quarter Sessions for breaking into premises and stealing a quantity of tobacco and cigarettes; and on what grounds a first offender under 10 years of age was, contrary to the usual practice, committed to prison?

Mr. HENDERSON: My attention has already been called to this case, and I have been in communication with the Recorder of Deal, who reports that he committed the boy to prison as he regarded him as being of so unruly a character that he could not be detained in a place of detention provided under the Children Act, and that he gave a certificate to that affect, as required by Section 102 (3) of the Children Act.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Has the right hon. Gentleman followed the reports of the case, from which it will he seen that the boy was given an exceptionally good character, and that it was suggested by the evidence that it was merely
as an escapade by a child that he was taking this step?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, I have followed it, and am not very satisfied that this was the case, or the sort of case that the Legislature had in mind when this Section of the Act was passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (BAIL).

Mr. MAXTON: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that two Coldstream Guardsmen, who were recently tried at Berks Assizes on a charge of window breaking, had been kept in prison for four months and three months, respectively, having been committed for trial by the lower Court without being given an opportunity of applying for bail; whether he will advise magistrates and the police that prisoners should be asked whether they desire bail in every possible case; and whether, with a view to shortening the period during which unconvicted persons may he kept in prison, time will he given shortly for the Criminal Justice Bill?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am obtaining full particulars of the case referred to, and when I have received them T will consider whether there is any action that I can usefully take. As regards the last part of the question, I am in communication with the Leader of the House

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (ADOPTED CHILDREN).

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 15.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, on the death of a man caused by accident, no provision is made in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for any adopted child, whether related or not, Who may have been supported by him; and will he take steps to have this hardship rectified?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am advised that the inclusion of adopted children among the dependants entitled to claim compensation could only he effected by amending legislation which cannot be undertaken this Session. The suggestion of my hon. Friend will, however, be noted for consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. E. BROWN: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the residue grant money to secondary schools is included in the percentage grant based on the local education authority's expenditure on higher education; and whether the amount is deducted by the Board from the percentage grant allowed?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The Board's grants to the local education authorities for higher education are assessed at such an amount as will, when added to the residue grant, bring the amount of the State contributions in each area up to one-half of the net expenditure recognised by the Board. The Appropriation Account for 1922–23, page 321, and the Estimates of the Board for 1924–25, page 27, show in some further detail how the two grants are related.

Mr. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman compare the answer he has now given me with the answer given to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown) on 15th May on the same subject?

Mr. TREVELYAN: Yes, I will.

Mr. E. BROWN: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of secondary schools in the administrative county of Warwick in the year 1910–11?

Mr. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Member will refer to the answer I gave him on the

Financial Year
No. of Schools.
Total No. of pupils.
Total expenditure on school maintenance.
Board's Grant.
Cost per pupil.
Grant per pupil.



L.E.A.
Non-L.E.A.









(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)






£
£
£
s.
£
s.


1919–20
3
11
2,920
74,297*
27,609
25
9
9
9






(78,539)
(29,469)
(26 18)
(10 2)


* These figures exclude (and the figures in brackets include) Rent, Loan Charges, Capital Expenditure, and expenses of administration.

The above figures are calculated on the same basis as those supplied to the hon. Member in the answer I gave him on the 15th May, a copy of which I am sending him. The notes attached to those figures, in so far as they relate to the year 1922–23, are generally applicable here.

15th May, he will find it stated that there were, in the financial year 1910-1911, 14 grant-aided secondary schools in the administrative county of Warwick.

Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the county authorities dispute this statement, and say there were two local education authority schools in that year, and 11 non-local education authority schools, so that he credits them with one more than they had, and, therefore, the table is inaccurate?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I will treasure the interesting information given me by the hon. Member.

Mr. BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that this is a very important point to progressive education authorities like that of Warwick?
18. The hon. Member further asked the total cost. per pupil in the secondary schools of the administrative county of Warwick in the year 1919–20; the amount of the Board of Education grants per pupil in the same period; and the total contributions of the Board of Education towards secondary schools in the administrative county of Warwick in the year 1919–20?

Mr. TREVELYAN: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the permission of the hon. Member, circulate it in the OFFICIAL-REPORT.

The answers is the follows:

Mr. BLACK: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will undertake to make statutory provision that secondary education shall be made available for all elementary scholars who prove themselves to be capable of taking advantage of it; and whether it is the
policy of the Board to secure in future that all certificated teachers shall be of an university graduate standard?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I may refer the hon. Member to Section 11 of the Education Act, 1921, which imposes on local education authorities the duty of providing for the progressive development and comprehensive organisation of education in their areas. I have already announced my readiness to consider sympathetically any proposals submitted by local education authorities for the extension of secondary school accommodation; and I have also announced my willingness to sanction increases in the award of free places up to 40 per cent.
With regard to the second part of the question, I have already explained that I am anxious that, as many teachers as possible should enjoy the advantages of a university education; but before deciding what steps to take in this direction, I propose to await the Report of the Departmental Committee which is at present reviewing the arrangements for the training of teachers.

Mr. BLACK: Is the Board of Education prepared to make a statutory provision that all the children born in this country should have the advantage of an appropriate secondary education?

Mr. TREVELYAN: could not do that; it would be perfectly impossible at the present time.

Mr. FISHER: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether there are any vacant school places in grant-aided secondary schools; and, if so, how many?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board do not assign to secondary schools a specific recognised accommodation. In October, 1921, the period of greatest pressure, the number of pupils in grant-earning schools was about 362,000. In October, 1923, the numbers in those schools had dropped by about 6,800. The decrease has been clue in part to the need for reducing serious overcrowding, which could only be tolerated for a short period. Generally speaking, the schools are full and could only admit a very limited number of additional pupils without overcrowding. In new schools opened since 1921 there are
perhaps 2,000 places which have not yet been lilled.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that, notwithstanding the additional accommodation provided for secondary school children in the Rhymney Valley, there are still 26 children at Maesy-Cwmmer, Monmouthshire, who are not yet provided for, although anxious to secure places; and will he take steps to secure temporary accommodation at Maes-y-Cwmmer so as to provide the education the parents of these children desire for them?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I was under the impression that the new school recently sanctioned at Rhymney would be sufficient to meet the immediate demand for secondary education in the district. If, however, this is not the case. I shall he glad to give favourable consideration to any proposal that the local education authority may make for providing such further accommodation as is necessary. Meantime, I will inform the authority of my hon. Friend's representations and ask them what steps they propose to take in the matter.

MEDICAL INSPECTION.

Mr. BLACK: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is prepared to make it an obligation upon all education authorities that a thorough medical inspection of all scholars shall be made not less than three times during their school career?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board's regulations already require that provision shall be made for the medical inspection of all children educated in public elementary schools on three occasions during their school career. As regards secondary schools and certain other institutions provided by local education authorities, the Board's regulations also require that provision shall be made for the annual inspection of pupils over the age of 12 years.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the Minister take steps to see that the regulations of the Board in this matter are carried out by the various authorities?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I believe that, on the whole, the regulations are being carried out. I do not know about Scotland.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that my knowledge of educational questions is limited only to Scotland?

TEACHERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. ACKROYD: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the amount of the largest pension now being paid under the Teachers Superannuation Acts of 1898 and 1912; what was the length of service rendered by the recipient of such pension; and how many pensions of £60 or upwards are now being paid under those Acts?

Mr. TREVELYAN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Gentleman's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The figures are as follow:

1. Amount of largest pension now being paid under the Teachers Superannuation Acts, 1898–1912:



£
s.
d.


Disablement allowance (man)
68
0
0


(Recognised service, 42 years.)





Superannuation allowance (including annuity)
71
7
2


(Recognised service, 46 years.)

2.—(a) Number of pensions (excluding annuities) of £60 and upwards:


Superannuation allowances:




Men
…
51


Women
…
—


Disablement allowances:




Men
…
82


Women
…
—


Total
…
133

(b) Number of pensions (including annuities) of £60 and upwards:


Superannuation allowances:




Men
…
466


Women
…
12


Total
…
478


Grand Total
…
611

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the emergency arising from juvenile unemployment, he will take
steps to raise the school-leaving age to 15 from the beginning of the autumn term in all districts where unemployment is acute, subject to the proviso that children who have completed the school term following their fourteenth birthday may be allowed to leave school on finding permanent and satisfactory employment?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I am anxious to receive proposals from local education authorities for by-laws raising the age of school attendance to 15, especially from districts where unemployment is acute, and I shall be glad to discuss with local education authorities any difficulties which they may feel in bringing such by-laws into force.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are Lancashire cotton districts where unemployment is very bad now, but where there are still jobs waiting, if not for adults, for young children; is he aware that an increase in the age limit will cause very serious hardship in cases where it is already bad enough?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I would point out that the local authoritics have the power to raise age limit if they like to do so.

CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.

Mr. FISHER: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Education what would be the approximate cost of establishing continuation schools for young persons between 14 and 16, under Sections 75 and 76 of the Education Act., 1921, in the London Metropolitan Police area and in the, county boroughs outside that area; and what proportion of that cost would be borne by the Board?

Mr. TREVELYAN: A calculation, based mainly on figures derived from a two years' experience in London, indicates that the number of young persons aged 14 to 16 in the areas named, who might be expected to attend day continuation schools, is about 475,000, and that about 95,000 school places might be required in order to accommodate them in day continuation schools, on the basis of one place being used by five pupils attending at different times in the week. The capital cost of providing the number of new places, if no existing accommodation were available, at a rate of £60 to £70 per place would be, say, six and a half million pounds. It would not, however,
be possible to provide a large number of school places at 'that cost within a short period of years. The cost of maintenance in London while the schools were open was found to be about £40 per place. If the same figure of cost now held good, the expense of maintaining schools providing 95,000 places would be £3,800,000 per annum, of which, under the present grant system, one half, or £1,900,000, would be borne by the Board. The right hon. Member will, of course, recognise that in these figures there is a large element, of hypothesis.

TEACHERS' TRAINING.

Mr. FOOT: 29 and 30.
asked the President of the Board of Education (1) if he has yet received the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Training of Teachers;
(2) whether the Board will hold the 'acting teachers' certificate examination after November, 1924?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I have not yet received the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Training of Teachers, and, as I have already explained, I shall not 'be able to make any statement upon the future of the acting teachers' certificate examination until I have that Report.

Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the anxiety of the teachers concerned indicate when the Report is likely?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I hope within the next two months.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (REFUND CLAIM).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 33.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. J. D'Arcy Hartley, of Billesden Coplow, Leicestershire, who, owing to his omission to make a special claim to the Income Tax Commissioners for a refund on account of interest on bank overdraft, paid in Income Tax during the 10 years 1913 to 1922, approximately, £1,414 in excess of his legal liability, of which only £747 has been refunded to him on account of the years 1920, 1921, and 1922; and whether, in view of all the circumstances of the case, and, in particular, that
during all this time Mr. J. D'Arcy Hartley was in fact returning an exact account of his net income to the Super-tax Commissioners, which was accepted by them for Super-tax purposes, he can see his way to make a return of tax overpaid prior to 1920?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): I have made inquiry with reference to the case referred to by my hon. Friend, but cannot see my way to authorise a refund for any period which is outside the statutory time limit for claims for repayment of tax.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Do I understand from that that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to make any concession?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY GRANTS (LORD MESTON'S COMMITTEE).

Viscount CURZON: 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Lord Meston's Committee upon percentage grants is still in being; how the Committee is composed; when it was set up; when it last sat; and when it is expected to report?

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee appointed in May, 1922, under the chairmanship of Lord Meston, to inquire into the method of making Treasury grants, has yet reported whether, if not, the Committee is still sitting; whether all the persons nominated to constitute it on 23rd May, 1922, are still members of it; and when it is likely to report?

Mr. SNOWDEN: As the answer to these questions is necessarily a long one, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Is this Committee still in being?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It is difficult to say either "yes" or "no." The Committee was very much depleted, owing to the fortunate or unfortunate results of two General Elections. The Chairman of the Committee, I understand, is preparing a Report.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Have any members been appointed on the Committee to take the places of those who were originally appointed, or have the original members gone on?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is so; the original members have gone on.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the Report will presently be presented? He will realise, of course—I need not ask him if he does realise—that this was one of the most important recommendations of the Geddes Committee, and that a very large number of people are exceedingly anxious to know the result?

Mr. SNOWDEN: As I have already suggested, I expect a Report from the Chairman of the Committee before very long.

Following is the answer:

The Committee, which is still in being, was appointed by Treasury Minute dated 22nd May, 1922, and is constituted as follows:

The Right Hon. Lord Meston, K.C.S.I, LL.D. (Chairman).
The Right Hon. A. Henderson, M.P.
The Hon. Sidney Peel, D.S.O.
Mr. W. Graham, M.P.
Mr. John Hinds.
Mr. J. Stanley Holmes.
Mr. James Kidd.
Sir Harry Haward.

The date of the last meeting was 6th March, 1923. Difficulties have arisen owing to the fact that the two General Elections which have taken place since the Committee was set up have deprived the Committee of the services of several Members of Parliament. In the absence, therefore, of some of the Members who have taken part in the Committee's deliberations, it is hardly to be expected that the Committee will be in a position to present a Report on the lines contemplated in the terms of reference. I hope, however, that the work done by the Committee may not be altogether lost and that it may be possible for them to issue a Report dealing with questions of fact relating to the history and present position of the percentage grant system. I have been in communication with the Chairman of the Committee on this point, but I am unable at present to say when the. Committee is likely to report.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE AND MOTHERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. BATEY: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to introduce Bills to remove the restrictions on old age pensions and also to establish pensions for mothers?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid I cannot at present add to my previous statements on these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE FACILITIES ACT.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to amend the Trade Facilities Act so that its provisions may apply to the granting of credits for expenditure other than of a capital nature where such expenditure will help employment?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The limitation to expenditure of a capital nature was embodied in the Trade Facilities Act deliberately and with general assent, and I am not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, the effect of which on balance would be to make more difficult the problem of unemployment.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is it not a fact that last night, on a Vote, Scotland received the concession for which I am now asking?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not the fact that the facilities for which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood) is asking can be obtained if he applies to the Export Credits Committee?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I believe that is so. I think the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers is precisely the case which will be considered, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel)—although I am not very familiar with it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the replacement of nets for the Scottish fishing industry was arranged for last night on the Vote of this House?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Gentleman is evidently under a misapprehension; the guarantee is to be considered by the Exports Credits Committee, and was not under an Estimate.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT SURPLUS WAR STORES (DISPOSAL).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if any depots under the Department controlling the disposal of unsold war stores and assets have been wound up and closed since 18th March, 1924; and will he state which of the southern depots, northern depots and magazines it has been decided to close within the next six months?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

In reply to a question of the hon. Member on the 18th March last, I gave the names of 59 depots and magazines al: home controlled by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission which contained surplus stores. Since that date eight of these depots and magazines have been cleared of stocks, namely:


Southern (3).
Northern (4).


Longparish.
Barnbow.


Lopcombe Corner.
Gainsborough.


Willesden.
Openshaw.



Westhoughton.

Magazines (1)—Gloucester.

Arrangements are being made under which it is anticipated that 33 more of these depots and magazines will be closed within the next six months, namely:


Southern (18).
Northern (15).


Banbury.
Aintree.


Beachley.
Barrow-in-Furness.


Chattis Hill.
Birtley.


Chittening.
Blaydon.


Credenhill.
Dudley.


Ely.
Ellesmere Port.


Farlington.
Gadbrook.


Hayes.
Georgetown.


Hereford.
Hunslet.


Mid Lavant.
Ironhurst.


North Weald
Lancaster.


Bassett.
Rainhill.


Park Royal.
Royds Green.


Portbury.
St. Helens.


Quedgeley.
Walton.


Swindon (one depot).



Wandsworth.



West Drayton.



Wormwood Scrubs.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OVERTIME).

Viscount CURZON: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in how many Departments a considerable amount of overtime has been worked since 1st, January; in how many and in what Departments overtime is still being worked; and whether he will issue instructions, in view of the large number of ex-service men unemployed, that further temporary staff shall be engaged rather than that the existing staff shall have to continue working overtime?

Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer to the reply given to the Noble Lord on the 10th March last. It is not possible within the limits of a reply to a question to give detailed particulars of actual overtime worked. The necessity for avoiding the working of overtime, as far as practicable, by the engagement of additional temporary staff was recently emphasised in a circular instruction issued to all Departments and is, I believe, fully appreciated.

Viscount CURZON: Can the special attention of the Air Ministry be drawn to this matter?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have given the list, and the Noble Lord will find that the amount of overtime worked is really very small.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCREASE OF PENSIONS ACT, 1920.

Mr. RAFFETY: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in amending the Increase of Pensions Act, 1920, he will take into consideration the case of police officers and others who retired after many years' service, but are not 60 years of age, having regard to their inability to live on their present pension and their difficulty in obtaining other work in competition with younger men?

Mr. GRAHAM: The proposals of the Government are contained in the revised Financial Resolution of which notice has been given and which is to be discussed to-day. I regret that I am not in a position to propose an Amendment of the Act of 1920 in the sense suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASH (RECLAMATION).

Mr. BLACK: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture exactly how many acres are to be reclaimed from the Wash for the outlay stated of £32,000; whether the land when reclaimed will have a market value of anything like the cost; what the ultimate loss to the taxpayers will be; and how many unemployed persons will be engaged upon the work?

The MINISTER, of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): It is proposed to reclaim about 390 acres, which are unlikely, when reclaimed, to have a market value equal to the cost of reclamation. At this stage it is very difficult to estimate what the loss, if any, will be. With regard to the last part, I anticipate that not fewer than 200 men recruited from the unemployed will be required.

Mr. BLACK: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the amount of the loss will be more than the cost of keeping those men as unemployed without work?

Mr. BUXTON: I can only express the hope that it will not.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. Is this the plan the Government have got for finding work for the unemployed?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. EGAN: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will lay before this House the terms and rates paid by the Government to contractors and sub-contractors for slaughtering and marketing cattle during the recent foot-and-mouth epidemic?

Mr. BUXTON: The rates vary in different parts of the country and according to the local circumstances attending outbreaks, but the average cost per head for the slaughter of cattle and marketing of carcases is about £3. This includes haulage of carcases from the farm to the meat market, commission on sale and market dues.

Earl of DALKEITH: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has carefully considered the correspondence between the Ministry and the county clerk of Dumfriesshire concerning a foot-
and-mouth disease Order of 22nd April applied to this county; whether he can make any statement in justification of the action of the Ministry in issuing this Order; whether he is aware that there has been great loss and hardship caused by this action; and whether he can give any assurances that more consideration for those who will be affected will be given in future before such Orders are issued?

Mr. BUXTON: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. I am satisfied that my officers are fully justified in taking immediate action in all cases when the suspected existence of foot-and-mouth disease is reported from a reliable source. While I very much regret the loss and inconvenience which may be caused by a temporary interference with trade while investigation is being made (in this case extending only to four days), they are very light compared with the enormous losses which are often incurred on the occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease, and make it imperative that no risks should be taken. While my Department has always in mind the serious consequences of a standstill Order, it is essential to retain its power to act on suspicion; indeed, both the Ministry and local authorities have more generally been reproached for their reluctance to accept unconfirmed evidence of the existence of disease.

LIVESTOCK (IMPORTS).

Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of imported cattle and livestock generally landed in this country since 1st January, 1924?

Mr. BUXTON: The numbers of livestock landed at ports in Great Britain in the five months January to May, 1924, as returned by the Ministry's inspectors at the ports, were


Cattle
…
…
…
400,017


Sheep
…
…
…
135,329


Swine
…
…
…
118,334


These figures include 376,390 cattle, 134,570 sheep, and 118,069 swine from Ireland.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how these figures compare with those of last year?

Mr. BUXTON: I should not like to give figures without giving them exactly. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

Sir B. SHEFFIELD: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if all cattle imported into this country are inspected at the ports of landing by specially trained qualified veterinary surgeon inspectors, under the direction of the Ministry of Agriculture, and has any case of foot-and-mouth disease been discovered by the inspectors amongst any of the cattle landed?

Mr. BUXTON: All animals imported into this country are landed at specially authorised premises, at which they are examined by qualified veterinary inspectors appointed for the purpose by the Ministry. In no case during the present outbreak has foot-and-mouth disease been found to exist in animals on landing.

IMPORT EMBARGO, NORTH LINDSEY.

Sir B. SHEFFIELD: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the area in North Lindsey (County of Lincolnshire) of the grazing land at present not stocked with cattle for feeding owing to the embargo placed on imported cattle by the Lindsey County Council; and is he aware that 900 cattle were admitted prior to the embargo, and not a single case of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred amongst them?

Mr. BUXTON: I have no information with regard to the; first part of the question, but I am informed that there is a demand from a small proportion of the graziers in North Lines for the relaxation of the Regulations made by the local authority of the Lindsey area under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order of 1895. I regret that I do not see my way to interfere with the exercise by the local authority of its discretion to make such regulations, which will doubtless be modified or withdrawn by the local authority when the latter considers it safe to do so.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deterioration that is taking place on some of these grazing farms owing to the rapid growth of grass, and are any steps being taken in the matter?

Mr. BUXTON: I do not think that that arises on this question. I should like to obtain accurate information.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Is it not a fact that the spread of foot-and-mouth disease is
almost entirely due to graziers and dealers?

SHEEP SCAB.

Earl of DALKEITH: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has thoroughly gone into the recommendations for dealing with sheep scab that were put before the Ministry by the Scottish deputation on 14th May; whether he proposes to alter the existing Regulations in accordance with the suggestions of that deputation; and, fin that case, whether he will take action before the commencement of the lamb sales?

Mr. BUXTON: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. I do not, however, consider it practicable at the present moment to take over control of Sheep Scab Regulations, which are in the hands of the local authorities, especially in view of the anxieties still remaining over foot-and-mouth disease, which make heavy calls upon the staff of my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVOLUTION.

Mr. AYLES: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any agreement has been come to with regard to the constitution of the Committee of Inquiry into the question of Home Rule for Scotland, Wales, and England; their terms of reference; and the date when they will commence their work?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): This question is being fully considered, and I hope it will be possible to make an announcement after the Whitsun Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (DIRECTORSHIP).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Civil Lord of the Admiralty is retaining the directorship of a certain printing and publishing company with his consent?

Mr. CLYNES: My hon. Friend was by inadvertence re-elected a member of the board of directors of the Victoria Printing House Company. The position is an unpaid one. His re-election was brought to his notice, and he at once resigned.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE (BRITISH LEGATION).

Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government has recently raised the British Legation in Portugal to the rank of an Embassy, His Majesty's Government will consider favourably proposing to the Argentine Government that the British Legation in that country should be raised to the rank of an Embassy also?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): The decision to raise His Majesty's Legation at Lisbon to the rank of an Embassy was taken in fulfilment of a pledge given to the Portuguese Government during the late War. It must not be taken, therefore, as a precedent.

Sir BURTON CHADWICK: Is this a matter for the Argentine Government to bring up or for His Majesty's Government? Why is it not considered important enough that Buenos Ayres in the Argentine should be represented by an Embassy?

Mr. PONSONBY: The hon. Member must not suggest that I said it was not important. What I said was that this case of Lisbon must not be treated as a precedent.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor has already acted in the same way in the case of Brazil, and does he not think there is much to be said for the proposal to raise the Legation at Buenos Ayres to the rank of an Embassy?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (GENERAL ELECTION).

Mr. HOPE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Home Secretary has sent a message to a candidate at the General Election pending in South Africa wishing success to the Labour party in that election; and whether he sanctioned this action?

Mr. CLYNES: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he has neither sent nor authorised any message such as that referred to in the first part of the question. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

POLITICAL PRISONERS, GERMANY (REPATRIATION).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement in reference to the repatriation of political prisoners in the Ruhr and the Rhineland?

Mr. PONSONBY: My information is that repatriation is gradually proceeding. I would call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the Debate in this House of the 30th of April last.

Captain BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether since the Debate the Government have urged upon the French Government the desirability of repatriating these prisoners in the interests of European peace?

Mr. PONSONBY: His Majesty's Government have borne that fact in mind.

PALATINATE (COMPENSATION AWARD).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that General de Metz, writing on behalf of the Rhineland Commission, has ordered that a sum of 20,000 gold marks be paid by the Palatinate as compensation to the Separatist Helfrich for alleged damages; whether the British representative on the Rhineland Commission agreed to this fine; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government has taken any steps in the matter?

Mr. PONSONBY: The infliction of a fine of 20,000 gold marks on the Palatinate as compensation to Herr Helfrich was the result of a majority decision by the Rhineland High Commission against which the British High Commissioner formally protested. An endeavour is now being made to secure a settlement of this question locally.

Mr. J. HARRIS: Can the Under-Secretary say how these damages were assessed?

Mr. PONSONBY: I have no information.

Mr. P. HARRIS: Can the bon. Gentleman say how far General de Metz is responsible for the Rhineland Commission, and how far he acts on his own authority?

Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that for two years the British representation of the Rhineland Commission has been a farce?

EUROPEAN SITUATION (GOVERNMENT POLICY).

Mr. BECKER: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now make a statement to the House as to the policy of the Government vis-a-vis the European situation?

Mr. CLYNES: The policy of His Majesty's Government is at the moment directed towards the settlement of the question of German Reparation by the complete acceptance of the Experts' Report. Until this question is out of the way no reliable or profitable survey can be made of the European situation.

Mr. BECKER: What would really be the attitude of this country in the case of Russia trying to take Constantinople?

ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONFERENCE.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to state the result of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the representatives of the Soviet Government now in London?

Mr. PONSONBY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) on the 19th May, to which I can at present add nothing.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD- BURY: In view of the great interest taken in these negotiations, will the hon. Gentleman issue an interim report showing what agreement has been reached?

Mr. PONSONBY: No, Sir, I am afraid that cannot be done.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: In connection with these negotiations, has any notice been taken of what is contained in this week's issue of the "Pravada"?

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (EXPENSES).

Mr. FOOT: 53.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of setting up a Select Committee to consider what steps can be taken to reduce the expense to which candidates are put in contested Parliamentary Elections?

Mr. CLYNES: The suggestion of the hon. Member will be carefully considered.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

CINEMATOGRAPH APPARATUS.

Major BARNETT: 60.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the projectors and other apparatus employed in the cinematograph shows at the British Empire Exhibition have been in every case manufactured mainly within the British Empire; and, if not, whether he will take steps to ensure that any apparatus not so monufactured shall be replaced by British apparatus in accordance with the Regulations?

Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am making inquiries of the British Empire Exhibition authorities, and will communicate further with the hon. and gallant Member in due course.

Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman take means to communicate to other Members of the House his reply on this important question?

Mr. LUNN: If it be desired, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL, REPORT.

FREE TRADE LITERATURE.

Sir F. HALL: 83.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the presence at the British Empire Exhibition of a stall exclusively devoted to the distribution of Free Trade literature; and whether, in view of the impression likely to be created by this attempt to use the Exhibition, primarily intended to improve trading relations with the Dominions, to promote trade with foreign countries at the expense of this country and the Dominions, the Government will take steps for the removal of the stall?

Mr. LUNN: I am informed by the British Empire Exhibition authorities that the printed matter, which can be obtained by callers at the stall to which the hon. and gallant Member no doubt refers, only contains information compiled from official statistics and other sources which are available to the public. In the circumstances I do not think it is necessary for His Majesty's Government to take any action.

Sir F. Hall: Has the hon. Member taken the trouble to send any representative to the British Empire Exhibition to inquire into this matter, and does he think it advisable that any ideas with regard to Free Trade or Protection should be promulgated in an exhibition carried on for the benefit of this country in general?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question was discussed a month or two ago.

Sir F. HALL: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member too often repeats his question.

Sir F. HALL: Does not the hon. Member recognise that this is not fair to people who hold different principles?

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. WHITE: 61.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give, as on the last convenient date, the number of children who were in receipt; of Poor Law relief owing to the unemployment of their parents?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The number of children under 16 years of age in England and Wales dependent upon parents who were in receipt of Poor Law relief on account of unemployment was about 250,000 in March of this year.

Sir F. HALL: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Southwark board of guardians have communicated with the Ministry asking for advice as to the manner in which they shall deal with the cases of 190 able-bodied men married, with families, mostly young, who have been receiving relief for more than two years without doing any work; when this communication was received; and what is the nature of the advice tendered to the guardians on the subject?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir. The guardians' letter was received on the 3rd May, and my right hon. Friend will send the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the reply addressed to them.

HOUSING.

STANLEY.

Mr. DUNNICO: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Stanley urban district council has been compelled to build houses to meet the needs of the locality; that the only land available that met with the approval of the Commissioner of the Ministry was land containing the Reservation Clause with regard to damage caused by subsidence; that the council therefore had no alternative but to accept this land; that as soon as building operations commenced the colliery company notified the council that they intended to work the coal underneath; and that these houses, built by public money, are likely to be damaged in the near future; and whether, in view of these conditions, which affect other areas also, he is prepared to ask for powers to eliminate such Clauses; from future purchases of land?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The urban district council in question acquired areas of land at South Stanley and Stanley Edge for the erection of houses under the State assisted scheme for 1919. The minerals under the land are leased to a colliery company. The sites were selected by the council, and in applying for my Department's sanction to the purchase of the South Stanley site they stated that in their opinion it was by far the most eligible land available in their district for housing development. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the intentions of the colliery company in regard to the working of the coal. As regards the last part of the question, my hon. Friend will be aware that the general question of mining subsidence is under consideration by the Royal Commission.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL, DWELLINGS, TOTTENHAM.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a letter from the Tottenham Urban District Council protesting against further blocks of tenement dwellings being erected in Tottenham by the London County Council; and whether he will now withhold his sanction to the erection by a public authority of any further dwellings of this type upon the area of another authority without its consent?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend has received a resolution passed by the district council, and he under stands that a conference has been arranged between representatives of the London County Council and of the district council to discuss the questions
raised.

WEST PARK MENTAL HOSPITAL, EPSOM.

Mr. BUCKLE: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in the case of the additional London County Council asylum about to be opened in the neighbourhood of Epsom under the name of West Park Mental Hospital, he will say whether it is intended for the care and treatment of certified patients; what accommodation it will afford; and whether voluntary boarders are to he admitted?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The institution will provide accommodation for 1,732 patients. My right hon. Friend regrets that the law does not allow voluntary boarders to be admitted for treatment in public mental hospitals.

MENTAL CASES (TREATMENT).

Mr. BUCKLE: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the majority of early cases of nervous breakdown cannot be proved to be dangerous or unfit to be at large, and that they are in consequence in no sense lunatics and cannot be classified among those whose treatment comes under the purview of a Royal Commission on Lunacy; and, in view of the fact that no legislation is needed in order to make provision for their benefit, will he take steps to supply without delay this need by the allocation, where desired, of a grant to the health committees, as distinct from the asylums committees, of local authorities, to enable and encourage the provision of appropriate hospitals for early cases which shall be free from detention and unconnected with lunacy administration?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Many early cases of mental illness are clearly certifiable under the Lunacy Act, and could not be detained for treatment, unless they were
certified, without contravening the provisions of that Act. The question of providing facilities for treatment without certification will be considered by the proposed Royal Commission, and my right hon. Friend proposes to await their Report before considering what action should be taken.

COAL INDUSTRY.

CO-OPERATIVE PRICES.

Sir K. WOOD: 68.
asked the Secretary for Mines where the provincial districts are situated in which the co-operative prices for coal are lower than those of coal merchants, and the respective amounts of such differences; and whether he is aware that in certain districts in Yorkshire an additional amount of 7s. 9d. per ton has, within the last few weeks, been charged by the co-operative society over the amount charged by local coal merchants?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I do not know the source of the information on which the hon. Member bases the latter part of his question, but if it is a paragraph in the "Coal Merchant and Shipper," of the 17th May, he will find that the next issue of the journal contained a correction of that paragraph. The fact is, it appears, that the co-operative prices, instead of being 7s. 9d. above the merchants' prices, as alleged, are 1s. 8d. below them. Another place where co-operative prices, according to my information, are lower (by 2d. or 3d. a cwt.) is East Glasgow; but my inquiries are not wide enough to enable me to answer the first part of the question comprehensively.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the other day he stated, in reply to my question, that there were many provincial districts where the prices of coal were lower than in the case of ordinary private merchants, while he has only been able to mention two?

Mr. SHINWELL: I said that in some provincial districts the prices were lower, and the information I have given to the hon. Member confirms that; but there is a number of places in regard to which I require further information before I furnish it to the House.

Mr. TURNER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Batley they are lower than anywhere else?

MINERS' WAGE, BRISTOL.

Mr. BAKER: 69.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the Bristol coalowners, who were parties to the settlement which has just been reached, undertook that if the Bristol collieries had to close owing to economic difficulties nothing would be done which would deprive the men of their rights to unemployment benefit; whether he is aware that notices have been posted on the Bristol pit-heads stating that the pits can only continue to be worked on the basis of the rates paid in April and May; and whether he will consider what steps can be taken to safeguard the men concerned?

Mr. SHINWELL: So far as my information goes, the facts are as stated in the question. I understand that the matter is to be discussed between the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation next Thursday. Meantime, I am asking the Ministry of Labour to look into the question.

FIREMEN AND DEPUTIES.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 70.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that colliery firemen and deputies, whose services should be solely to look after the safety of the mines, are called upon to perform various other duties, which takes up much of their time and prevents them from giving their constant attention to the important work which they are ostensibly engaged to do; and whether he will consider making them Government officials responsible to and paid by the State out of funds collected from the industry?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am not aware that firemen and deputies are required to undertake duties which prevent them carrying out their statutory duties in a thorough manner, and if my hon. Friend has information of any such breach of the Coal Mines Act I shall be obliged if he will let me have it, in order that steps may be taken to enforce the law. I do not think that the proposal in the latter part of the question is really practicable without nationalisation of mines.

TRANSPORT.

LONDON-SOUTHEND ROAD.

Viscount ELVEDEN: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether exceptional difficulties have occurred to account for the long delay in the completion of the London to Southend toad; and when it is anticipated this road will be open for traffic?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): There have been certain exceptional difficulties in connection with the construction of this road, due partly to the nature of the soil and the prolonged wet weather. The section between Southend and Rayleigh will be open to traffic this week, and other sections nearer London will be completed shortly. It is not likely, however, that the whole road will be open to traffic till about the end of September.

Viscount ELVEDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to expedite the repairs to the present roads between Rayleigh and Witham, which are in a very bad state?

Mr. HOFFMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of employing local labour upon this road, in order to expedite the work?

Mr. P. HARRIS: Is it not the fact that the London County Council are bearing half the cost of the wages of the men employed, and that, therefore, London men are entitled to be at work there?

UNCLASSIFIED ROADS (HEAVY TRAFFIC).

Mr. DUNNICO: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to favourably consider conferring upon local authorities power to control the use of unclassified roads by heavy vehicles and with respect to the roads being utilised by heavy through traffic?

Mr. GOSLING: It is open to county councils and to county borough councils to make an application to the Minister of Transport, under Section 7 (4) of the Roads Act, 1920, for an Order prohibiting or restricting the driving of vehicles of any specified class on any specified highway. A number of such Orders have been made, in each case after a public inquiry. I do not think additional powers are necessary.

RURAL ROADS (GRANTS).

Mr. DUNNICO: 74.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a communication from a conference of rural authorities, held at Brierley, Yorkshire, recently, relating to the question of highway expenditure by rural district councils; and whether, in view of the inability of these councils to undertake increased expenditure on the maintenance of reconstruction of highways, such additional expenditure being essential if such roads are to be maintained in proper condition, he proposes to grant to these authorities increased financial assistance?

Mr. GOSLING: I assume that the hon. Member refers to a conference held at Beverley, Yorkshire. If this be so, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on the 27th May to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, and on the 3rd June to the right hon. Member for the New Forest and Christchurch Division. I am sending the hon. Member copies of these questions and answers.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION, CLYDEBANK.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has received representations from the Clydebank Town Council for a grant towards the making of a new road which is urgently needed in the district; and if he will state the reason for which the request has been refused, seeing that it would give work where it is needed?

Mr. GOSLING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A grant has been offered to the town council of 50 per cent. of the cost of the works situated within the burgh boundaries, and 60 per cent. of the cost of the works outside.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the statement was made on Cabinet authority that 100 per cent., and not 50 per cent., would he given to work of this description? Not a halfpenny has been granted since Labour came into power. That grant was offered to Clydebank before Labour came into power.

Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. Is not this question exactly similar to one put by the hon. Member
yesterday? May we know how it is he has managed to get it on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: It was on my advice, because there was an error in Tuesday's question. But the hon. Member was making a speech on the question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is my hon. Friend aware that this district has been certified as a necessitous area, that the offer was made by the past Government and that repeated requests were made to this Government in the hope that more generous treatment would be given?

Mr. MAXTON: Will the Minister tell us how it is that for a very similar road starting only 10 miles away the Conservative Government granted money in the proportion of 75 per cent. from the Exchequer and 25 per cent. from local sources, and why should the district re presented by my hon. Friend be specially discriminated against?

Mr. GOSLING: The only answer I can give is that my friends had better see me in confidence.

Sir F. HALL: Is not that a way of trying to square matters?

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Will the hon. Gentleman see representatives from south of the Tweed?

PIANO INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD- BURY: 77.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of men employed in the piano industry in this country on 1st April, let May, and 1st June?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): I am unable to give separate statistics for the number of men employed in the piano industry as they are included in the group embracing the manufacture of all musical instruments. The number of insured men in this group is about 15,000.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the past month there have been practically no British pianos sold, and that in consequence between 1,000 and 2,000 men had to be dismissed, and does he consider that the 200 proposed to be employed in reclaiming the Wash are ample compensation?

Mr. SHAW: I have no information which will lead me to believe that no British pianos have been sold. I have no information which will lead me to believe that these men have been dismissed. My information is that unemployment has gone down.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

Mr. SHAW: I will make any inquiries any hon. Member desires me to make.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: What are the sources of information which lead the right hon. Gentleman to believe that unemployment in this industry is going down?

Mr. SHAW: I did not say I believed it was going down in this industry

Mr. MARLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in St. Pancras, which is one of the chief piano industry districts, there has been no increase of unemployment due to any action of the Government?

Mr. COMPTON: Is it not a fact that, far from there being unemployment, there is an excess of overtime being worked in this trade?

TARIFF PROPOSALS (INDIAN TARIFF BOARD).

Mr. HARLAND: 78.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, as the outcome of the tariff proposals which the Indian Imperial Assembly is now engaged in debating, the Indian Tariff Board estimates that, not including heavy steel rails and railway wagons, to be excluded from India under bounty proposals, India's imports of mild steel will undergo between now and March, 1927, a reduction of 218,000 tons, valued at some 2i millions sterling; and, if so, whether he is modifying his estimates of unemployment in the United Kingdom to accord with the probable effects of India's action on the market from which she derives two-thirds of her steel supplies?

Mr. SHAW: I have seen the estimate of the Indian Tariff Board, which appears to be based on the assumption that under the proposed tariff the total consumption in India of the materials referred to will be approximately the same in 1926–7 as it is to-day, and that the Indian production will be largely increased owing to the
enhanced prices arising from the tariff. I doubt whether this is a safe basis on which to make estimates of unemployment in Great Britain.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.

Mr. WILLIAM WATSON: 79.
asked the Minister of Labour whether:he is aware that at the last meeting of the finance committee of the governing body of the International Labour Office proposals for a reduction amounting to £500,000 in the estimates were brought forward in the name of Great Britain and accepted by the governing body; whether these proposals were authorised by his Department; what were the heads of the reduction; and whether he has received a Report as to the effect of the reduction on the work of the International Labour Office?

Mr. SHAW: I am afraid my hon. Friend has been misinformed. The total budget of the International Labour Office for 1924 was 7,032,295 gold francs, which is rather more than £300,000, and the budget for 1925, approved by the finance committee of the governing body at its meeting in April, was 7,119,595 francs—an increase of 87,300 francs. The estimate for 1925 originally suggested by the Director of the International Labour Office was 7,570,203 francs. The economies on these proposals to the extent of 456,608 francs, which were accepted by the governing body were, to a large extent, suggested by the representative of Great Britain, who was acting in accordance with the instructions of the Government. Reductions to the extent of 250,000 francs were effected under the headings for "Materials, etc.," and to the extent of 206,609 francs under the heading for "Staff Salaries, etc." There is certainly no reason to suppose that the work of the office will be adversely affected by these economies, or the Government would not have suggested them.

RUSSIAN REFUGEES (RELIEF).

Mr. MAXTON: 80.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that proposals have been made by Dr. Nansen to the Council of the League of Nations that the relief work connected with the Russian refugees, which has hitherto been dealt with by the League, should be transferred to the International Labour
Office, since it now consists in finding employment for those concerned; whether the Council of the League is disposed to favour the idea; whether he is aware that the necessary sums having already been voted no extra expenditure would be involved in this transfer, and that the transfer would strengthen the position of the international labour bureau in Europe and lead to a more efficient service; and if he will state what is the attitude of his Department towards these proposals?

Mr. SHAW: Such proposals have been made, but they have not yet been considered by the Council of the League. They will be considered by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office at its meeting next week. I am aware that no extra expenditure would be involved at the moment, but I must not be understood as necessarily associating myself with my hon. Friend's suggestion that the proposed transfer would be in the best interests of the International Labour Office. The instructions to be given to the British Government representative on the Governing Body of the International Labour Office are at present receiving the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. MAXTON: I hope I am not to assume that my right hon. Friend is opposed to the suggestion in the question.

Mr. SHAW: No, I want my hon. Friend to assume exactly what I have said, that the matter is under consideration.

MILK SUBSIDY.

Mr. BLUNDELL: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Trade upon what grounds the food Department of his office are withholding payments in the case of agreed accounts due to traders in respect of the subsidy for loss entailed in converting milk into cheese during the period November, 1919, to January, 1920?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The hon. Member must be misinformed. All requests for payment have been promptly dealt with, and out of a total amount of £70,000 deducted from cheese subsidy allowances the sum of £53,000 has already been repaid.

TELEPHONE EXCHANGES (SUB-POST OFFICES).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 84.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that at salaried sub-offices where the official residence and the telephone exchange are in the same building, it is an essential condition of appointment that the salaried sub-postmaster is responsible, in addition to his or her normal duty of 48 hours weekly, for maintaining the continuous service for an average of approximately 70 hours weekly, and in view of the detriment to health occasioned by such continuous service, he will consider the provision of relief at such offices or such increase in remuneration as will enable the salaried sub-postmaster to employ assistance?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): The 70 hours referred to include the night hours during which the number of calls is as a rule negligible. I am, however, making detailed inquiry into the hours of duty and remuneration in these cases and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member later.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: As long as the work is light, is it to be understood that Ministers do not mind employing men overtime without extra payment?

Mr. HARTSHORN: I have said that I am making a detailed inquiry into the hours, and I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member later.

Mr. COMPTON: Have these hours been increased since the advent of the Labour Government to office?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that since the Labour Government have come into office men are offering themselves to work overtime for nothing?

Mr. HARTSHORN: In reply to the first supplementary question, I may say that the hours complained of are hours that were in operation before I went into office. I have been investigating the hours worked by the night telephonists, and I have already decided to make substantial improvements in the remuneration of this class of worker.

Mr. B. SMITH: Is not this one of the cases where the Government's 48-hour Bill will effect a remedy

SMALL HOLDINGS, SCOTLAND.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 86 and 87.
asked the Secretary for Scotland (1) the number of small holdings constituted by landowners in Scotland of their own free will in terms of Section 35 of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911; and whether he will see that this information be given in future Annual Reports of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland;
(2) the number of small holdings registered in terms of Section 33 of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911; and whether he is prepared to instruct that this information be in future attached to the Annual Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): Statistics are not available on the two points put by the hon. and gallant Member. I will consider the question whether information on these points can be given in future Reports of the Board of Agriculture.

Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Net has not been carried out?

Major WOOD: 88.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has given special consideration to the decision of the Scottish Land Court affecting the question of land settlement in deer forests, which is referred to in page 18 of the last Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland; whether he is aware that this decision makes it practically impossible to settle smallholders on deer forest land on account of the cost of fencing; and whether he will initiate legislation to repeal the provisions of the Act of 1919, which places upon the State the burden of fencing land taken for small holdings?

Mr. ADAMSON: The reply to the first, part of the question is in the affirmative. I appreciate the difficulties which arise from the decision referred to, but I am not at present satisfied that its application is as wide as the hon. and gallant Member suggests. I am examining the position further, and will, if necessary, consider whether any amending legislation is expedient.

Major WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Board of Agriculture that this has practically
stopped land settlement on deer forest lands, and is he prepared to do nothing in face of that?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am prepared to consider whether any amending legislation is necessary.

ENLISTMENT (BRITISH ARMY).

Mr. THURTLE: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in the year 1921–22, out of 106,954 persons offering to enlist, 59,736, or 56 per cent., were rejected for physical reasons, whilst, in the year 1912-13 only 2'7 per cent. were so rejected; and whether he can give any reasons for the difference?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Walsh): The percentages of rejection are 56 per cent. and 27 per cent., not 21 per cent. The higher percentage of rejection in the later year is no doubt the effect of war conditions upon the physique of the population, but I am glad to say that the quality of the recruits now coming forward is steadily improving.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the reasons for the rejection? Is it on account of size, or physical deficiency?

Mr. WALSH: I think the answer I have given and the figures contained in that answer reply to the hon. Member's question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: My reason for putting the question was that I thought the right hon. Gentleman himself might be rejected on the question of size.

FACTORIES BILL.

Mr. MASTERMAN: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that in the Factories Bill there are 143 Clauses, in part consolidating the present law and in proposals for new legislation, he will, for the general convenience of the House, circulate a White Paper before the Second Reading of the Bill indicating Clauses which contain new proposals.

Mr. HENDERSON: Such a Paper has already been prepared, and I hope to lay it to-morrow.

RAILWAY WORKERS' STRIKE.

Sir K. WOOD: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether an unofficial strike of railway shopmen employed by the Great Western and London Electric Railways commenced at midnight and whether he can state what steps he is taking to maintain the public services affected?

Mr. SHAW: It is the case that an unofficial strike of certain sections of railway workers employed by the Great Western and London Electric Railways has occurred. I have been in touch with the employers and the National Union of Railwaymen. As the executive of the latter have indicated in a. public statement, the stoppage of work has occurred without the authority of the union and against their advice and instructions. It is also in contravention of the arrangements which exist for the settlement of matters in dispute. The companies are taking all possible steps to carry on their services, and my Department will remain in close touch with developments.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great public inconvenience has been caused all through London to-day, and will he tell the House exactly what steps he has taken to restore the services?

Mr. MAXTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask the Prime Minister whether this House of Commons or the Minister of Labour has any more responsibility for the maintenance of transport in the City of London than they have in the Highlands of Scotland?

Viscount CURZON: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Hi Majesty's Government will be able to pro vide protection for those who are willing to work, and whether they will give such protection?

Mr. SHAW: In answer to the first question as to what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to maintain the services, as the railways are not nationalised, obviously it has scarcely become our business yet to maintain those services. It will be the business of the Government to do what is humanly possible to bring this dispute to an end. That can best be done, I think, by using
common-sense methods and not by taking steps which might inflame feeling rather than subdue it. With regard to the second supplementary question, all arrangements have been made in that connection which the necessities require.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Are the arrangements for conciliation, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred as having been set aside, statutory provisions which have not been comp4ed with by parties to this dispute?

Mr. SHAW: Perhaps a little explanation will put the House in possession of the facts. There are two bodies, the railway companies and the union. In this case there is no body which is affected which has taken part in those arrangements. The union has no responsibility and has counselled its members not t take part in it. We know that the railway companies have never negotiated with any body that is carrying on the strike. Consequently no negotiations are taking place at the present moment between the actual strikers and the railway companies. The position is very involved. There is no body which can be said to be at the head of the men who are out on strike. The National Union of Railwaymen is not responsible for it in any way and has not sanctioned it, and the railway companies will not meet any body who want to meet them on behalf of the men on strike. There you have a situation which is, for the moment, very obscure, and in which it is very difficult to say what is the best step to take.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If this dispute had occurred in a city like Birmingham, would the House of Commons on the first day be pestered with questions, and would the Minister of Labour be asked to give his reasons?

Sir K. WOOD: On a point of Order. I desire at the end of Question Time to ask your leave to move the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH BOUNDARY COMMISSION.

APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN.

Mr. BALDWIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can now announce the name of the Chairman of the Irish Boundary Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): With the full approval of the Government of the Union of South Africa, His Majesty's Government have asked Mr. Justice Feetham, a member of the South African Supreme Court, to undertake this duty. I am very glad to be able to inform the House that Mr. Justice Feetham has accepted the appointment, and will leave South Africa for this country next week.
Perhaps I may be permitted to remind the House that Mr. Justice Feetham has already rendered valuable public services in connection with Indian reforms. Mr. Montagu availed himself of his advice on constitutional questions in the discussions and investigations preliminary to the drafting of the Government of India Bill of 1919. He served with distinction as Chairman of the important Committee then appointed by the Secretary of State for India to inquire into questions connected with the division of functions in India between the Central and Provincial Governments, and in the Provincial Governments in that country between the Executive Council and Ministers, a question the complexity and importance of which it would be difficult to overstate. Consequent on the Report of this Committee, Mr. Feetham gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee of both Houses which sat in the course of 1919 to consider the constitutional reforms proposed in India.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Leader of the House what will be the business on the reassembling of Parliament?

Mr. CLYNES: I hope that the House will permit me to defer until to-morrow, when the House assembles, the announcement of business for the week following the Whitsuntide Recess. Communications are proceeding through the usual channels with regard to certain business and particularly the position of the Dominion Preference Resolution. Meantime I would ask to be allowed to defer making any announcement until tomorrow.

Mr. E. SIMON: With regard to the Prevention of Eviction Bill, is the right
hon. Gentleman aware of the serious hardship to tenants all over the country caused by the delay in passing this Bill, which ought to have been got through before this if facilities had been given?

Mr. CLYNES: That is a view which we share. We have done our best to hasten the consideration of these amendments. I can assure my hon. Friend that it will have an early place in the week when we reassemble, if not on the first day.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other House does not meet until the 27th of June, and that therefore the Bill cannot be passed before that date, owing to the delay that has already taken place.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends had not defeated the first Evictions Bill this would not be necessary.

Mr. SIMPSON: May I ask whether the House is to reassemble on the Monday or the Tuesday?

Mr. CLYNES: On the Monday. As to the other question, I do not want at this stage to allot blame for any delay that has taken place. I am thinking of the future, and, so far as I could invite an early meeting of another place, I have done so.
Ordered, "That other Government business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Clynes.]

RAILWAY WORKERS' STRIKE.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the failure of the Government to take adequate steps to maintain the public traffic services which are now gravely interfered with by the lightning strike on the London Electric Railways."

Mr. SPEAKER: I find myself unable to put the hon. Member's Motion to the House. The Government do not manage these railways. Besides that, the form of the Motion is quite indefinite, and the Standing Order requires that it shall be definite as well as of urgent public importance.

Sir K. WOOD: May I point out that I am not asking the Government to maintain the services on the railways, but the public services generally, just in the same way as other Governments have done in similar circumstances

Mr. SPEAKER: That is even more indefinite.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (VISITORS).

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I venture on behalf, not of myself alone, but also of other Members with whom I have been in consultation, to ask your guidance, Sir, in a difficulty which has reached serious dimensions, and which is of increasing dimensions owing to the very large influx of visitors to the House. No one grudges members of the outside public the pleasure that a, visit to this House affords, even though sometimes it turns this House into something like a section of the Wembley Exhibition. But there must be certain limits. I can only say that this morning I myself and several other hon. Members found it utterly impossible to use the Library of the House for the purpose for which it is intended. While I was there, for a long time there was a continual passage of several hundreds through the Library. I understand—you will guide us in the matter—that the regulation of visitors to the House is entirely in the hands of the Lord Great Chamberlain, and I would ask if you could advise us of any way by which this House can make representations which would affect the decision of the Lord Great Chamberlain with regard to the use that the House makes of its own premises, because I am afraid, if things go on as they are, the Lord Great Chamberlain may have to ask Members of this House to restrict their attendance because, to some extent, they interfere with the movement of visitors. This is a difficulty which has reached very considerable dimensions. It is interfering with the efficiency of our work, particularly in the Library, and I would ask if you could give us any assistance in laying our case before the great authority of the Lord Great Chamberlain, who seems to regulate the matter, to the exclusion of the authority of the House in its own premises.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is a bad thing in many ways that the general public should find so much to interest them in visiting the Houses of Parliament. The present circumstances are unusual, and I am certain that Members themselves will be prepared to suffer some little inconvenience, in view of the great interest that is shown by the public. If Members desire to make representations to the Lord Great Chamberlain, he or his deputy, I am sure, is accessible.
With regard to the Library, I think that there is something there that requires my consideration. If it be the case—and I have had other complaints besides that of the right hon. Gentleman—that the work of Members in the Library is made impossible—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—then I propose, immediately the House resumes, to take that matter into my consideration. There must be proper regard given to the work that many Members have to do in the morning in the Library, and I will consider that part of the complaint, because it falls within my own province.

Mr. SUTTON: Many Members have received a large number of letters from parties who are coming along during Whitsuntide, and who have never been in London before. They are anxious to visit the 1101.16-e, and I want to ask you, Sir, if it be possible for the House to remain open during Whitsuntide. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is!"] I have made inquiries of the officials, and they say that it will be open only on Monday, Tuesday, and Saturday. Many people are coming during the week, and they would like to visit the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a regulation of the Lord Great Chamberlain, and I have no power to interfere.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are finding great difficulty in getting tickets for the Strangers' Gallery, because the accommodation is so small, and I would suggest that we might get the use of the side galleries for strangers. These galleries are not used by Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Well, we would ask Members, just like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), to put up with the little trouble that accrues from folk coming here. They come a long way, and they think it a great thing to visit the
House. Most of us who come from Scotland are quite prepared to put up with these little inconveniences, and I would ask hon. Members to forego the use of the side galleries in order that strangers might come here.

Mr. SPEAKER: Interference with the seating in the House is a very large and important question, and I am not prepared to make any change unless it be on the advice of the Select Committee of the House.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish very heartily to endorse the remark that has come from Mr. Speaker on this important question. It should be one of the most gratifying features of our Parliamentary life that, having courted the people to be their representatives, every man and woman should be glad to see them come here.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I would plead for the present arrangement to continue. I and the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) had the great pleasure of the assistance of 15 other Members this morning, when there was a policeman with each of the 50 drafts going round. We went through the Library, and the children were more interested there than in any other part, of the House. They are children from the schools, and, if they are prevented from seeing the Library—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: And seeing the Members at work.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I want to say, in conclusion, that I hope you will consider the matter in that light, because We went through the Library to-day, and none of the Members who were there made any remark or criticism at all. The children, 900 in number, passed through quite quietly in less than half an hour.

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall certainly consider both aspects of the question.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Lords Amendment to be considered upon Monday, 16th June, and to be printed. 168.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to certification of still-births and deaths, and the disposal of the dead," presented by Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE; supported by Sir Thomas Inskip, Dr. Haden Guest, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Junior (Cardiff), Dr. Chapple, and Mr. Jowitt; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 24th June, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

BUILDING MATERIALS (CHARGES AND SUPPLY) BILL,

"to prevent excessive charges for Building Materials, and to make provision for securing an adequate supply of such materials; and for other purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. WHEATLEY; supported by Mr. Webb, Mr. William Adamson, the Attorney-General, Mr. Albert Alexander, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, and Mr. jaws Stewart; to be read a Second time -upon Monday, 16th June, and to be printed. [Bill 166.]

Orders of the Day — SMALL DEBT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. F. C. THOMSON: I, and I think my hon. Friends who sit an this side of the House, approve of the Bill and are anxious to see it passed into law. We think that it has some valuable features. The first. Clause gives to the Justices and Sheriffs power to make payments by instalments in cases where arrears of rent are sued for in the Small Debt Court condiditional on punctual payment of current rent, and that, I think, is a valuable provision. Owing to the lack of that r over, the Sheriff or Justice of the Small Debt Court has in many cases been unwilling to grant payment by instalment. Therefore, the first Clause of the Bill, I think, effects a definite improvement in the law. If we come to the second Clause, there, again, I find myself in approval. The Clause raises the limit of exemption of wages from arrest-meat from 20s. to 35s. per week When one considers that 20s. was fixed 60 years ago, and when one remembers the rise in the cost of living since then, I am of opinion that the 35s. which the Bill proposes to enact as the limit is a reasonable figure, and I therefore support it.
It will be within the recollection of those who were on the Scottish Committee that some of us proposed an Amendment to the effect that this provision of the Bill should only take effect in respect of arrestments used for debts contracted subsequent to the passing of the Bill. The original Act of 1870 did not apply to contracts entered into prior to its passing, and we thought, as a point of principle, that it was right that the same consideration should be applied in the present Bill, and that to affect engagements entered into before the passing of the Bill was open to objection. We thought this was an important point of principle, though it would not have much
effect in practice, because, as it was pointed out, the Bill has been printed some considerable time, since the month of March, and we also know that by the Small Debt Act of 1837 it is enacted that workmen's wages shall so far as necessary for their subsistence be deemed not to be liable to arrestment. At the same time this House should be jealous of retrospective legislation interfering with contracts. I do not desire to detain the House longer on this Bill, which I think makes a reasonable improvement in the law of Scotland.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have agreed to accept the limit of 35s. per week, it is true, hut I am not satisfied, having regard to the time the first Act was passed, that an increase of 15s. represents anything like the increase in the cost of living that has since taken place. I think that an exceedingly good case could have been made out for an increase to well over £2, but we were anxious to have something done immediately in order to help the poor people who are in this position, and therefore we accepted this compromise of 35s. a week. I would have been glad if the Secretary for Scotland could have incorporated
in his Bill a Clause raising the amount for poinding purposes. At present it is £10, and I would like to have seen incorporated a provision which would have increased that amount. The hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson) stated that some of the Sheriffs were willing to grant payment by instalments.

Mr. THOMSON: under the Rent Restrictions Art in the Sheriff Court Sheriffs have most freely granted, in Glasgow and elsewhere, payment by instalments. The point my right hon. Friend desires to achieve by this Bill is that the same facilities should be given in the Small Debt Court as are exercised in the Sheriff Court.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am aware that runny of the Sheriffs are anxious to allow debtors to pay by instalments, but I rather inferred that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the Sheriffs were against doing it.

Mr. THOMSON: No.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This is a small measure of justice to these poor people. It will go some little way towards helping them in their trying conditions. The Secretary for Scotland does not seem to appreciate the fact that the Bill does not touch the very fringe of the evictions trouble. I would ask the Secretary for Scotland not to let this Measure end his efforts in this direction. There is a great and crying problem to which I would ask his attention. The Bill does some small justice to these poor people, but it does not touch the fringe of the evictions problem, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to get an even bigger measure of justice, for I am sure that most hon. Members will agree it is a crying scandal that these things should occur in civilised community.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I do not think there is any necessity for me to say much about this Measure. I am glad it is meeting with such a large measure of acceptance in all parts of the House. Only three points of substance, as far as I can ascertain, have been raised. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson) evidently has the idea that there is a slight tendency to retrospective legislation in one part of the Bill. I think we thrashed that matter out in Committee, and I need say no more about it. My hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Buchanan) has suggested that this Bill does not touch in any way a problem which affects the poorest of these people, seeing that they can be as freely evicted under it as they could have been before it was brought in. I want to say I profoundly disagree with that. The working out or the Bill will, I believe, have the effect of making it more difficult for the poorest sections of the community to be evicted.

Mr. MAXTON: If they are employed and have a wage. of more than 35s. per week

Mr. ADAMSON: My hon. Friend seems to forget that the unatttachable figure embodied in this Bill—the amount of money that is unattachable—is the maximum, whereas under the old Act it was the minimum. Under the old Act if it were proved that a necessitous family required for normal maintenance more
than 20s., it was within the power of the Sheriff to grant a higher sum than 20s. I think the fact is that most of the people did not know that that was the law, and therefore did not claim the increase. All I have to say, in conclusion, is that I think my hon. Friend had better see how this law works out before he begins to prophesy. I thank hon. Members for the favourable reception they have given the Bill and I hope they will pass its Third Reading forthwith.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS INCREASE [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient—

1. To make provision for raising, as from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, the percentages by which pensions not exceeding one hundred pounds a year to which the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, applies, may be increased to an extent not exceeding the following limits.

(a) In the case of an existing pension not exceeding twenty-five pounds a year above seventy per cent.;
(b) In the case of an existing pension exceeding twenty-five pounds a year but not exceeding fifty pounds a year, above sixty-five per cent.;
(c)In the case of an existing pension exceeding fifty pounds a year but not exceeding one hundred pounds a. year, above fifty per cent.;

2. To make provision for requiring police, local, and other public authorities to increase pensions granted by them up to the maximum amount authorised by the said Act as proposed to be amended in pursuance of this Resolution;
3. To make provision for repealing the statutory condition for an increase of pensions under the said Act that the pensioner must reside in the British Islands; and
4. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, in the case of such of the pensions to which that Act applies as are payable wholly or in part out of moneys provided by Parliament, of such sums as may be required in consequence of the foregoing provisions."—(King's Recommendation Signified.)

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): The Committee will recall that a few weeks
ago the Government submitted a Financial Resolution for a Bill to grant increases upon pensions under the Act of 1920. It would be an exaggeration to say that on that occasion the proposals that were submitted met with unanimous approval. There was a good deal of criticism on the part of hon. Members representing all points of view, and, as a result, I undertook to withdraw the Resolution, to amend it in accordance with my pledge on two particular points, and, in due course, to put the Resolution again on the Paper. That promise has been fulfilled and the Resolution this afternoon shows what the Government are prepared to do at the present time. We very sincerely hope that after a not very long discussion the Committee will agree to adopt it. Rut before it does so it is necessary that T should give one or two words of explanation of the amended Resolution. I propose to notice some of the criticisms offered on the last occasion—criticisms which have been repeated in correspondence in the period that has since elapsed. It is perfectly clear that two weeks ago when the Resolution was before the Committee there was a good deal of misapprehension on the part of many hon. Members with regard to its provisions. We want Members to realise very clearly that the Act of 1920 represented a purely voluntary provision for, as it turned out, about 100,000 people. They were in receipt of pensions to which their services or their work had entitled them, but, unfortunately., because of the great increase in the cost of living during the War, those pensions very largely lost their purchasing power and the position of the recipients became precarious. It was therefore decided to apply to them certain scales of increase.
We all recognise the hardship which fell upon those people, but I think the Committee will agree that this was a purely voluntary act on the part of the Government of the day, and one which it was not in any way bound to perform. There was no legal compulsion; it was, as I say, a purely voluntary act to meet the situation as regards the class of people whom we have in mind. At the same time it is necessary to recall it because this problem is very much wider than the class of people immediately affected. There are large classes in the community whose securities depreciated
during the War, whose incomes were undermined and who had, in their own way, given service to the State in various capacities at other times. They can get no remedy at all far their depreciated incomes at the hands of the community as a whole, yet these people—and this is not in any way a criticism of the recipients of pensions—have to stand in behind any considerable provision which we make for the 100,000 people or less dealt with in this Resolution. I mention that fact merely to put in proper proportion some of the criticisms passed on the last, occasion and to remind the Committee that there are certain arguments which have been used outside among the community in criticism of any legislation of this kind which is, as we all recognise, a mere expenditure of money, no doubt to meet circumstances of hardship, but from some other points of view a little difficult to defend.
Another point regarding which many hon. Members were under a misapprehension was the obvious confusion between the pre-War pensioner in Great Britain and the post-War pensioner. Comparisons were drawn between the very low pensions in force prior to 4th August, 1914, and before the Act of 1920 and the very much higher pensions which have accrued, particularly in the case of the police, to other classes of society during and following the War. May I make it perfectly plain, and I think on this point there will be no substantial difference of opinion, that that can never be an issue as regards this legislation? All that the Act of 1920 set out to do was to increase, according to a certain scale of percentages, the pensions which were in force prior to August, 1914, or, more broadly, prior to the passing of the Act itself. That Act did not set out to bring pre-War pensions—which were admittedly low and which I must not be understood as defending at this Box—up to the level of the post-War pensions, which were granted, as we all know, under very different conditions. Yet if we read the speeches of hon. Members on the last occasion, particularly when they became more obstreperous in criticism of me than is usual, we will see that what they had in mind was the increase of the low pre-War pensions to such a level as
would bring them up to the post-War rates. That, however, is not before the House in this legislation at all. What is before the House is such increase or improvement upon what was introduced in 1920, as will more nearly bring the people in receipt of those pensions into line with the still high cost of living. I refer to these points because they occurred again and again in the course of the last Debate, and I mention them now in order that we may clear the ground as regards the Resolution now submitted. The most substantial point which was made, referred to the suggested abolition of the means limit. If the means limit were abolished at once, as regards classes of pensioners up to £150 per annum single and £200 per annum married, which is the scope of the legislation of 1920, the immediate cost to the State in a full financial year would be approximately £552,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to promise or give a concession of that kind at the present tune.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Is that in addition to the £300,000?

Mr. GRAHAM: That would be in addition to the £300,000 which is now on the Order Paper.

Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: That being the case, may I ask the hon. Gentleman why the leaders of the Labour party pledged themselves to do this at the last Election?

Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. and gallant Memberwill no doubthave full opportunity of dealing as he dealt on the last occasion with the question of pledges; but I do not suppose anybody ever imagined that you could initiate the very large expenditure involved in that change at one stroke. I am not going beyond that and I cannot make any pledge for the future. All I say regarding our proposals is that they represent a substantial step in the direction of removing undoubted hardships which exist at the present time.

Major HORE-BELISHA: How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at that figure?

Mr. GRAHAM: There is a good deal of information at the disposal of the Treasury after the experience of the Act of 1920, and I think the Committee will
take that as a fairly accurate figure of the initial cost which would be involved. Looking to the fact that the income from all sources comes to about £3 per week:n the case of a single individual and £4 per week in the case of a married couple, I think hardly any hon. Member will dispute that on the whole it is not an unsatisfactory condition of affairs at the present day. We are bound to remember that there are large classes in the community at the present time who enjoy nothing like that income even if they are in full and regular occupation and who are in receipt of very much less if unfortunately they are out of work. But if the abolition of the means limit were adopted we could never confine it to the £l50 single and £200 married; it is quite obvious, according to what hon. Members argued on the last occasion, that they had in view the abolition of the means limit as a whole, and I say at once if that suggestion were adopted it would mean an immediate expenditure of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. Having regard to the fact that this is only one branch of pensions legislation—and that there are many other classes of the community who have
all to be considered—and I am bound to point out there. are certain classes much more urgently placed than many people under this proposal—I am certain my right- hon. Friend would not be justified in taking such a step which would involve an expenditure of millions or even of an additional half million you take it on the narrower part of the scheme.
So much for the two or three arguments employed on the last occasion. I wish to say something in the next place about the proposals which are embodied in the Resolution. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, criticised the restriction under the Act of 1920 which laid it- down that the increase would only be available if the pensioner resided in Great Britain. We have decided in response to representations to abolish that restriction and effect is given to that decision in the proposal now before the Committee. While it is necessarily difficult to submit a firm estimate in this connection, I am advised that the cost of that concession will be anything between £50,000 and £60,000 per annum. That is the first part of the additional burden which my right hon. Friend shoulders in this connection.
In the second place, we agreed on the last occasion to alter or amend the legislation of 1920 in order to make it definitely obligatory upon local authorities in Great Britain to grant the increases of pension which were, laid down or indicated in that Act. The Committee will recall that when that Measure was passed there was a feeling that it was obligatory and not permissive in character, but later investigation showed that such was not strictly the case and questions arose particularly as regards the application of the increases of pension by certain of the local police authorities in Great Britain. From the point of view -of money there is very little in this point. Our investigations show that in the financial year ended 31st March, 1923, the local police authorities in England and Wales had applied the increases under the Act of 1920 to such an extent that the gross expenditure on that date was about £238,000. The total possible gross expenditure, if the Act were fully enforced, was £256,000, so that there was a difference in money of about £18,000 representing the extent to which the local police authorities had failed to apply the full provisions of the legislation of 1920. It is true that a small number of local police authorities refused to apply the Act at all, and a larger number applied it with certain variations or under certain restrictions, and it mainly the lack of uniformity which is criticised. We have decided, under pressure from the House, to embody a Clause in the forthcoming Bill, which is covered by a part of this Resolution and which will make this provision by local authorities compulsory. I should fail in my duty if I did not say frankly to the Committee that it is always a very difficult matter to coerce a local authority and it is particularly difficult in a matter of this kind, where some of the recipients of the increased pensions are in a, position relatively better than that of other classes of ratepayers and much better than that of the unemployed, the partially employed or those having no income at the present time. That, however, is the decision embodied in the Resolution, and due effect will be given to it.
There is only one other duty which I must discharge this afternoon and that is to outline to the Committee the exact nature of the cost involved. The Com-
mittee will not expect me to give details of the percentage increases because they are set forth in the Resolution and were discussed on the last occasion broadly speaking, as regards expense it comes to this: that under the Act of 1920, making provision for rather less than 100,000 people, we are spending in round figures about £1,000,000 per annum under this head at the present day. Our proposal to increase the percentages will involve an annual expenditure in a full year of £300,000 but the Committee will recall that we have decided in view of a Parliamentary promise at the time to give retrospective effect to these increases back to 1st July, 1923, and that involves us in an additional expenditure, this year, of £225,000.

Sir JOHN SIMON: Are the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given, the figures of estimated outlay from Imperial funds or do they include that portion of the outlay which will fall on the local authorities?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, what I am describing is our part of the burden. It is only in certain cases, such as the police and so on, that there will be a contribution from the local authorities.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON- EVANS: May I ask whether that also includes amounts under the Royal Warrant and the Orders in Council in respect to the Army and Navy?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, all naval and military pensioners are included under this head. The £300,000 for the increased percentages, plus the £225,000 for retrospective purposes, plus the £60,000 for removing the residential qualification, make a total, approximately, of £600,000 giving a round figure-which is the figure of the Government's proposal in the present financial year. I think, when the matter is viewed in that light, the Committee will agree that we have gone a considerable way to agree to the suggestion made on the last occasion, and we have, in the second place, after a very short period of office, found a very large sum of money to meet the hardest of the cases. Let me add that the bulk of the percentage goes to naval and military pensioners, and to other pensioners in receipt of pensions below £25 per annum, who will now get 70 per cent. increase on the pre-War pensions; that is, we are
putting up their pre-War pensions substantially to a point nearly equal to the cost of living, and, by common consent., it is the poorest class of pensioner who most requires our assistance. That is the broad aspect, of the legislation, and I now submit it with confidence to the approval of the Committee.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has followed the suggestions that were made to him on the last occasion, and withdrawn the old Resolution, and brought this in instead. I am thankful to him for having included the two matters which the Committee specially pressed him to include last time, namely, the matter of the residential qualification, and the alteration from "may" to "shall" with regard to the police pensions. He suggested that the public have not quite understood what the object of the Act of 1020 was, and he has had some correspondence during the last two weeks. I, also, have had some correspondence during the last two weeks, and there is, undoubtedly, a feeling of great soreness that the Resolution does not also include the removal of the means limit, the removal of the age limit, and the increase of the percentages. The public want all that done. I can quite understand the Government do not see their way to do it. I can quite understand that, but the blame which they are getting in the matter they have earned, because before the Election they promised to do the very things which the correspondence I have received shows the public now want them to do, and it is because they have misled the public for the purpose of the last Election, that retribution is now falling upon their heads. But we ar3 in the position to-day of either having to vote against this Resolution, and so destroy the benefit which is now to be extended beyond that which the Government originally proposed, or we have got to vote for the Resolution. So far as I am concerned, I am going to vote for the Resolution, because I want, at least, this amount of justice done to the pre War pensioners. I do not believe there is the slightest use in pressing the Government again to withdraw this Resolution and to enlarge its scope, and that notwithstanding the promises they made before
the Election. And so, as I have got to do one thing or the other, I propose to vote in favour of this Resolution.

Mr. SIMPSON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, in introducing the Bill in 1920, with reference to the age limit and the means limit, used these words:
It is obvious that some strict limitation had to be put upon those whose pensions were to be increased if the expense was to be within the limits of the country at the present moment.
He went on to say:
The limit chosen has been an income limit on the one side and an age limit on the other, so that the increase in pensions relate only to those pensioners over 60 years of age, or those who have retired by reason of their infirmity under the age of 60."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1920; col. 353. Vol. 131.]
and so on. It is these people between the ages of 55 and 60 whose, case I wish to represent to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon. It cannot be that there are many of them. The police pensioners below 60 must be very few now, and the police are in a very special position, as I have tried to represent to the Committee on a previous occasion. Under the Police Pension Act, 1890, they were entitled to retire at the age of 55. In the Civil Service generally the retiring age was 60. There was a reason for this difference, because the police service was looked upon as more severe than ordinary service in the Civil Service; so much so, that when a man was transferred from ordinary service in the Civil Service to the police service, his previous service of four years only counted as three for purposes of police pension. I, therefore, urge the hon. Gentleman to look with some favour on this, and reduce the pension limit to 55, because it could not cost any money to speak of, and would benefit a very few deserving people who are feeling their position very sorely. I simply want to suggest that a very small addition might be made to the expense, and the Act amended accordingly.

Captain DIXON: I want to say a word about the Royal Irish Constabulary, because I think these pensioners are perhaps more deserving of our sympathy than any others. I would like to point out that the wage a constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary got was 25s., and he retired on £40 a year. Therefore, it was quite impossible for that man to accumulate
any sort of sum upon which to retire. There is another point to remember. In 1917 and 1918 the Royal Irish Constabulary were really used as a military force, and in 1919 the Government found it very difficult to get recruits. They, therefore, altered the conditions of service entirely, but, before doing so, they weeded out, with a fine comb, all those men in the Royal Irish Constabulary who they thought were not capable of carrying on really what amounted to military service. They did not tell those men the conditions were not going to be improved, but they advised these men, as the service was dangerous, and they could not see any further hope of increase of pension, that they should go.
The result was that an enormous number of the Royal Irish Constabulary retired in 1919, and, within a few months of their doing so, the entire conditions of the police force were improved. I think the Committee will agree that it is almost impossible for any man with a wife and children to live upon a pension of £40 a year. They object, as all other pensioners do—though it hits them, perhaps, harder than any others—to the age limit of 60, and they object to the fact that if the whole family has £200 they cannot receive any benefit. This second point is, perhaps, hardest of all, because a Royal Irish Constabulary man must, in fact, be a casual labourer. He has no trade, and, therefore, it is particularly hard for him to say exactly what his income is. These Royal Irish Constabulary men complain that a regular Star Chamber inquiry takes place in their homes and households practically once a year, and it is very hard on men who served the State so gallantly and well, as they did.
There is one other point I would like to mention, and that is that at present the Royal Irish Constabulary man, instead of finding the old jobs which he ordinarily filled, such an that of a caretaker, he can now find no job. In fact, in many parts of Ireland he is a hunted man, and, for that reason only, I think I might call upon the Government to look into the case of these men, and see if something cannot be done to meet it.

Sir J. SIMON: I recognise that the proposal which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has brought before the
Committee to-day is an improvement on the proposal which he thought adequate a fortnight ago. When I contrast the terms of the two proposals, I find it instructive to recall that, on the last occasion, he assured the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not find more money than the money which he then, on a narrower scheme, said could be allowed. We all understand the extraordinary difficulty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any Government in finding very large sums of money for purposes even so deserving as these; but I cannot help thinking there are a good many people in the country, a good many old pensioners, who will read our discussion to-day and reflect rather sardonically upon the difference between the generous promises of candidates in Elections, and the decision—I think the rather niggardly decision—in which those promises are translated into law. I do not say that applies to one set of people or one party, but it is undoubtedly a very serious thing that inquiries of this sort made by these deserving old people, either single or through their organisations at Election time, should so often he answered in such generous profusion, and then, when translated into cold print, the actual result should be so different.
I recognise that it is no good crying for the moon, or for Members, not sharing the responsibility of office, speaking as though it was only the hard-heartedness of the Minister which required some restrictions to be made; but I should like to call attention to one or two definite results of the proposal in its modified form. May I point out that the Act of 1920, whatever its shortcomings may have been, at any rate recognised that an old pensioner, whose pension did not exceed £150 if he was unmarried, or even £200 if he was a married man, was a person who was entitled to the special provision of an Act of this sort. Those were the limits in the Act of 1920, and in the Schedule one sees that it provides for an increase
where the existing pension exceeds £100 a year, but is less than £150 a year in the case of an unmarried person, or exceeds £130 a year but is less than £200 a year in the case of a married person.
I should have thought if we were going to revise the scale of percentages of increase, at least we should have applied it to a similar range of cases. The truth
of the matter is, that the new proposal, although no doubt it is an advance on the proposal made a fortnight ago, is not a proposal which covers the range of pensions up to £150 for unmarried people, and up to £200 for married people. It is a proposal which has not any effect at all upon any pensioner, married or unmarried, whose pension is over £100 a year.
5.00 P.M.
Therefore, the Committee will see that what we are now invited to do is not to take the Act of 1920 and to revise its percentages, but to confine ourselves to dealing with a portion—I agree that it is a most important portion—of the range which the earlier Act covered. I rather gathered from what the Financial Secretary said that the most serious burden on the Treasury occurs in the lower ranges, because they represent the greatest number of people. One would expect that. I hope that the authorities will consider whether it is their fed and final intention, in making their revised proposal, not to cover the ground which was covered by the Act of 1920, but to limit themselves to the lower portions of the scale.
In the second place, the Committee will observe that, by the confession of the Financial Secretary—who has been perfectly frank about this, as he always is, as well as most magnificently clear and simple in his statement—there is not the smallest pretence that these percentages, even when they are thus revised, will really compensate for the rise in the cost of living. On the contrary, the Financial Secretary said, in effect, "Take the man whose pension is not more than £25. In his case I am going to authorise an addition of as much as 70 per cent. That is an addition which, as things are, is not very far off the rise in the cost of living." That statement shows, in itself, that as regards every other case with which you are dealing you are not making a provision which coincides at all with the rise in the cost of living. While it is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that these people, however much you may sympathise with them, are not people who have any right to anything more than they are getting, if you mean that they have no contractual right and could not bring an action
against the Crown by Petition of Right, where is the Member of the House who, when asked this question at the General Election, prefaced his answer by explaining that the questioners hail no right to ask for what they were demanding? That is not the way in which any of us dealt with this matter before the Election.
A third point is this: The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot contemplate the removal altogether of the means limit. One listens, of course, with great respect to the estimate that is made of the additional expense involved. I confess to being a little surprised that it as much as it is. But still the hon. Gentleman has the very highest assistance behind him, and we have to pay attention to what he says. I am not clear what he meant by the contrast between £520,000 on the one hand and what he called £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 on the other hand.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: To abolish the means limit within the present limits of £150 for single persons and £200 for married persons would cost £520,000. To abolish it altogether on pre-war pensions as a whole would cost between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000.

Sir J. SIMON: I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this: We are entirely in the Government's hands. I warmly support the constitutional rule that the expenditure of public money is limited to those proposals which the Government of the day feel able to recommend to the House. That is essential in democratic government. But at the same time I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether, if he cannot get rid altogether of the means limit., it is not possible, on reflection, to do something to raise it. See what an absurd position we are in! Compare the situation under the Act of 1920 with the situation as it will be if we modify that Act only to the extent now proposed. The Act of 1920 contains a means limit to the effect that the pensioner must satisfy the pension authority that his means, including his pension, are less than £150 a year if unmarried, or £200 a year if married. Take, for example, an unmarried man whose pension is £80. He would have got, under the law of 1920, an addition of 40 per cent. to that £80, and he would lose it only if the increased
pension, plus his other savings, came to as much as £150. But now the hon. Gentleman says, "I am going to increase and improve that percentage; I am going to make his pension bigger by a higher percentage." But at the same time he is leaving as an absolutely fixed figure the sum of 2750. Surely that is absurd.
Under the law of 1920 a man may, as the result of thrift and saving, have as much as £60 or £70 a year provided. He would none the less get the advantage of the Act. The Amendment would mean that if he got as much as that he would be above the means limit, because the additional percentage means that the increased pension that he got would be a larger sum than before. Surely it is not unreasonable to consider whether we can raise the means limit by a percentage which at least corresponds to the percentage which you are adding to the pension itself. Otherwise it would be an absurdity. The original Act was designed to secure that a man should not lose an increased pension merely because he saved so much money. The new proposal is one which will not allow him to enjoy the increased percentage if he has saved the same sum of money. We should, at least, increase the means limit by the same percentage. I have criticised it, because it is the duty of the Committee to see how far it is reasonable to suggest Amendments to the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is here administering public funds with unlimited claims in all directions upon him. I am sure that he will be the first to confess that neither a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer nor any other can work all these benefits by a mere sleight-of-hand. I gratefully recognise that the Treasury have improved a proposal which they made a fortnight ago. At the same time it would be regarded as very cold comfort by many people, who expected much more generous terms, to be told that this is all that can be afforded at the moment.
I hope that the Chancellor will consider whether at least these modifications can be made. They cannot be very serious additions, but they will go some way to meet what is undoubtedly a very widespread feeling outside. These people may not be very powerful electorally, but everyone knows of most distressing cases among them. Such cases very often exhibit in the highest degree the hard-
ship which has come on a decent family at the end of its life—people who believed that, when the time came to retire, they would have just sufficient income to live in modest respectability for the rest of their days. Those are very hard cases to refuse. While I think that the whole Committee, and not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has to take the responsibility in saying that the thing has to be dealt with reasonably and within what the nation can afford to do, yet, at the same time, I hope that the Chancellor may be able to make some small additional concession before this matter is settled.

Mr. BAKER: I hope that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to make a greater concession, he will at least respond to the appeal which has just been made to him. When this question was last discussed in Committee I put two or three questions to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, and I regret to say that he did not reply to those questions at the time, nor has he dealt to-day with the points then raised. I have a long acquaintance with the hon. Gentleman and a great admiration for him, and I am certain that he has not failed to deal with these points because he has not remembered them. I am certain, too, that he has not failed to deal with them out of discourtesy, because he is one of the most courteous of men. I must ask that whoever speaks on behalf of the Government later will have some regard to the simple points which I submitted in our previous discussion. I do not propose to weary the Committee by repeating the points, because the Financial Secretary will have them in mind. This afternoon his case is that the pre-War pensioners have no contractual right to an increase of their pensions. As the last speaker said, it may be that they have no legal right which can be urged in the Courts, but I submit that when the Government agreed that, having regard to the great increase in the cost of living, it was necessary to increase the rate of pension to be paid to all civil servants in its service at the moment, it realised that the whole question of pensions called for review.
My strongest objection to the attitude which the Government are taking up to-day is based upon a belief that legisla-
tion and regulations of this character are altogether unsatisfactory from the point of view of the Government, from the point of view of public servants, and from the point of view of the nation generally. I ask the Financial Secretary to consider whether it is not possible for him to give an undertaking that the Government will introduce amending legislation for removal of the anomalies which have been created during recent years. I appeal to him to consider whether it is not possible, in the existing circumstances, to appoint some sort of inquiry that will bring the whole problem under review, so that we may be certain that people are being treated with something like equity in relation to each other.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I wish the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to know that I and those who are working with me do not intend to oppose the Resolution. Not that we are in any way satisfied; far from it. We are extremely dissatisfied with the Resolution as is stands. I agree with every word which has been spoken by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon).
think that he hit many of the important points on the head. In our last discussion, and again to-day, the Financial Secretary has ignored one point which has escaped the notice of the Committee. That point is that this is a decreasing class, and a very rapidly decreasing class These men are old men, their expectation of life is very short, and in a very few years the class will have disappeared altogether. I should like the Financial Secretary to realise that in one particular locality—I could give him the facts—the average age of the pre-War pensioners is just over 70 years, so that their expectation of life is only four or five years. We are not satisfied with this at all, and we look to the Government to carry out the pledges which they have made on the subject.
I want to add a word to what was said by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson), who spoke first from the opposite benches. He referred to the age restriction of 60 years, and said that it was a very small matter. I have been into the figures as far as it has been possible for me to do so, and I know that this is a very small matter indeed. There
are no naval pensioners in it at all, for every single man in the Navy up to the age of 55 who was in the Navy at the outbreak of War in 1914 was called up, and they are all 65 now. Therefore, it does not affect naval pensioners at all. There are practically no Army pensioners, because every man up to the age of 50 who could serve at all did serve in 1914 and is, therefore, 60 years of age now, and the hon. Member opposite has told us that there are very few police pensioners, and there are very few civil servants. There are very few at all, and I am convinced that my hon, Friend could, within the financial limits of this, Resolution, bring in a Government Amendment, when he introduces the Bill, to remove this age restriction, without incurring any great expenditure, if any, on the country at all. I would ask him to consider that matter very carefully, because it is a gesture which he could make to these pre-War pensioners which would give them immense satisfaction and would cost very little.
I want to refer to a matter which has been referred to already by previous speakers and that is the question of further legislation. The Financial Secretary a fortnight ago, when the previous Resolution was before us, indicated in almost every paragraph of his speech that the Government intended to introduce fresh legislation on this subject at a not distant date. I marked the paragraphs, but I do not propose to weary the Committee by reading them all out. I will refer to one or two cases where the hon. Gentleman mentioned this question. He talked of the restrictions and modifications which
must stand together and form the subject of separate legislation.
Then, again, he said:
We thought it best to take the first step by increasing the percentages, and the other changes must form the subject of separate legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1924; col. 1874, Vol. 173.]
He went on in almost every paragraph to refer to fresh legislation on the subject, and these old pensioners of the Army and Navy who were sitting up in the galleries of this House a fortnight ago went away, and everyone of them said, "Well, this is something as a first instalment, and the Financial Secretary has said that there is going to be fresh legislation, a review of the position, and we shall get something further later on,
something to meet our requirements." I want to know very definitely whether the Government have in view such legislation. I want a very definite answer to that, because I do not want these old pensioners to go away under any misapprehension on the subject. It is not fair that in their old age they should be buoyed up by hopes which might not be in the breast of the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The whole question of the means limit is, I recognise, an extremely complex one, and is bound
with legislation which I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to bring before the House later on in connection with old age pensions. It is a very complicated matter altogether. There is immense dissatisfaction all over the country, as is evident from the speeches which were made a fortnight ago from every quarter of the Committee, and from the speeches which have been made again to-day.
I suggest that the Government ought to have some investigation, as the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. Baker) suggested, as to the whole position of the pre-War pensioners and as to what is reasonable and feasible to carry out, not a pledge such as has been made broadcast in an irresponsible manner, but a reasonable consideration as to what is absolutely feasible. I, therefore, join with my hon. Friend opposite in suggesting that some investigation of this nature, either by a Select Committee, or by a judicial Committee, or some other Committee, should be undertaken, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should definitely say that they intend to bring' in fresh legislation, if not this year, early next year, and that they are going to have a Committee in the meantime to consider the whole question. I should be very grateful if the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary could give the Committee a promise now that when the Bill is before the House they will introduce an Amendment so as to remove the restriction as to age.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: I suggest to the Committee that when the House passed that Resolution last year it was a definite intention on the part of the House to deal generously with these men. That Resolution was as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act,
1920, are inadequate to meet the needs of pre-War pensioners, and further legislation should be passed to augment the increases allowed by that Act and to amend other provisions of a limiting and restrictive character which have disqualified many deserving pensioners from receiving benefit under the Act."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1923; cols. 553-4, Vol. 164.]
I submit that the very limited increases which have been made in the proposal of the Financial Secretary this afternoon do not carry out the spirit of that Resolution of last year, neither do they carry out the amending of the "other provisions of a limiting and restrictive character." I appreciate that there is one alteration made which deals with those living beyond Great Britain, but the "other provisions of a limiting and restrictive character" merely apply to the question of the limiting of their means, and until that is dealt with, the provisions of the Resolution are not carried out. The hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) pointed out the importance of the question of the age of these men. Unless we accept this Resolution this afternoon, there will be very few of these poor men who will receive any benefit at all, and it is a question of whether we shall permit any further delay to take place, or let these men have the restricted means alone which have been set forth in the proposal to-day.
I quite appreciate that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would like to increase the amount of this money, but although it is an appreciable sum which is now put before the Committee, yet, having regard to the rapid mortality which must arise from the passing of these poor men from this world, the amount will come down very rapidly, and we could afford to be more generous with them. I live amongst these men; I see them and meet them frequently, and my hon. Friend cannot conceive the bitter disappointment which these men have had. They have been accustomed to hope that, when the House of Commons passed a Resolution, it would be carried out quickly, freely, and generously, and I am sure that no one in the Committee to-day would agree for a moment that the spirit of that, Resolution of last year has been adhered to.

Mr. HAYES: I would like to follow other hon. Members in asking that before
our minds are made up on this general question of restrictions, the Government will consider some form of inquiry into the question. There is a great deal to be considered. The implications of the Bill are hardly correct. I believe the Bill which will be founded on this Resolution is really wrong in principle. The 1920 Act aimed at making some relief to the old pensioners because of the increase in the cost of living, and if that were so, it seems strange that we should limit the measure of justice to those who happen to be 60 and over. We seem to have no real reason why we should not apply the general increase to all pre-War pensions, and not to a selected number. It is true that only a few are outside the pale of this Resolution, and because there are only just a few, I think the Government might very well hold out some promise of an early, satisfactory recommendation in respect of those few.
I want to say that, just as readily as I joined in the criticism of the Government on the last occasion, I now wish to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for their modification of the last Resolution, for making the permissive Clauses into mandatory Clauses and also for removing the disqualification of those pensioners residing abroad. It. will, I am sure, be some satisfaction to the Chancellor when I tell him that the result of the promise that the pension shall be payable to those who may be living abroad has meant that the case of at least one old pensioner has come to my notice, who has now been able to make arrangements to join his family in another country many thousands of miles away from here, and I am sure that in many cases that concession will be very gratefully accepted. The Financial Secretary made rather light of the benefit that he has given to us in the new Resolution by altering the word "may" into "shall," but I want to assure him that it is a real benefit that he is conferring on these pensioners, a benefit that is far greater, perhaps, than he himself imagines. This Resolution is to have retrospective effect to last July, but even those local authorities who may have granted the increase or a portion of the increase permitted under the old Act may not have been quite so ready to apply the additional increase with retrospective
effect, and had we not altered the word "may" into "shall," those poor old pensioners, who have expected to have something in the nature of what would be regarded by them as a windfall, would have been deprived of it, probably, in a large number of cases, and I want the Financial Secretary really to appreciate what he has done by turning the word "may" into "shall." The Committee will, I am sure, appreciate it also.
I want to urge upon the Financial Secretary to promise if he will have some thorough inquiry made into this general question of pre-War pensions, that it may be done rather quickly, because these men, for whom we are now appealing in regard to age and income limits, will probably be beyond the pale of this request unless he does it this year. There is no reason at all why we should not get to grips with this question at once, in the hope that when it comes before the House on a subsequent occasion we shall be able to deal finally with it; because it is inevitable that the matter is bound to be raised again and again till there is a settlement, which I hope will be final.

Captain BOWYER: I must confess that I am very disappointed with the Financial Resolution which is on the Paper to-day. My disappointment is still more in view of the whole attitude taken up by Members of the Government who so recently have given their views upon this matter to the country. Let me remind the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what he himself said during the last General Election. I have his words here. They are:" You may certainly count on my support." What sort of support will these old men think that the hon. Gentleman has given to them when they read the report of this Debate to-morrow morning?

Mr. GRAHAM: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that in the four months we have been here we have given £600,000.

Captain BOWYER: But that was not the question upon which the hon. Gentleman gave his answer. The question he was asked was: "Are you in favour of removing the means limit?" and the old people who asked that question were the people to whom the answer meant more than anything else in the world. I am going to quote a specific case. I have the
figures brought up to date. The question was asked the hon. Gentleman by the pre-War teachers. Let me give him the figures. There were 5,240 of these teachers and there was not one of them under 70 years of age. Many of them were much older than 70. What expectation of life have they? How can they wait until on some future occasion the Members of the Government shall be as good as their pledges? Not one of the pensions which these 5,000 teachers have exceeds £60 a year. The average amount of the pension is under £40. That is a point upon which I wish to lay stress, because the means limit which was included in the Act of 1920 is still enforced, and no less than 1,400 of these 5,000 odd teachers, all of whom retired before August, 1914, will not benefit one iota by the present proposal of the Government. Why?
It is amazing to know that out of their very small salaries—for which they worked about 40 years—they have been able to do what they have done. The average salaries of the pre-War teachers were 1()4 a year. By thrift they saved out of those very small salaries so that they have a pension averaging £40. The question asked the hon. Gentleman at the election on behalf of those men was:
Are you in favour of doing away with the means limit and increasing the pensions in accordance with the increase in the cost of living?
It was to that question that he replied,
You may certainly count upon me.
Within the last four years no less than 1,797 of these pre-War teachers have died. Therefore the liability is a diminishing one. I submit that this question of the withdrawal of the means limit is all-important to these men.
There are two main reasons why this question is deserving of better treatment by the House of Commons and by the Government. Those two main reasons are these: In the first place these men are not as other men. They are men who in the various services have built up those services to what they are to-day. It has been their efforts in the Navy, Army, Civil Service, the teaching profession, the police, and so on, the life-long services of these very men, that has brought the services up to the magnificent position in which they to-day find themselves. That is one thing. The second is, that these men, having so small an expectation of life the matter is one which can-
not wait. I for one for the first time during my life—perhaps for the last !— wish to say in respect to the leaders of the great Liberal Party, that I listened to the brilliant speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), and I agree with every word he said. I regret, however, that he sat down without saying to the Government: "We are the arbiters of your fate: we quite agree that the Government must always determine whether there shall be expenditure of public money but this is a case so serious and so deserving that we insit upon the Government paying attention to it." He alone, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) might have said that to this Socialist Government. Why did he not do as his Party did last night in this House.

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have been in the House when his right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) who, I presume, acts as his leader, announced that he proposed not to resist the proposal now made.

Captain BOWYER: I listened to every word that my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said. He spoke, as he always speaks, for himself—it may be for others; but certainly he did not speak for me in this matter. If I can get anybody to show me the way to get justice done to these old men I will endeavour to do it, irrespective of what my party, or any other party, may say. I say that this claim of these old age pre-War pensioners is so insistent and just, that the whole House should combine to see that that claim is attended to at. once.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I am sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) has introduced a partisan note into this discussion—

Captain BOWYER: No

Major HORE-BELISHA: He has dissociated himself from his leader, and I propose to claim the same privilege. I hope, however, that this discussion will continue on entirely non-party lines, except that I hope the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be adopted, and that the whole Committee will combine and give the Government the defeat they so richly deserve. I am pre-
pared to go with the hon. and gallant Gentleman into the Lobby to press upon the Government the fact that they are not carrying out their pledges. In this respect, not only is their own honour involved, but the honour of the House of Commons, because it was the House of Commons that, in the first instance, passed this Resolution. The Resolution introduced to-day is worth just about as little as the pledge of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the front Government Bench. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down read an extract from a letter that had been written by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I have another which is addressed from Sunny Gardens, Hendon, London. It was written in a very optimistic vein—in view of the situation in which it was written—and in view of the fact, presumably, that it was written before the last general election. The date of the letter was 3rd November, 1923, and the hon. Gentleman said:
With reference to your kind letter of 27th October, I shall certainly continue to do the best I can to secure an increase of these pre-War pensions, and also to promote the Bill to amend the Act of 1920.
What did the hon. Gentleman mean by that [An HON. MEMBER: "He is doing the best he can"] If it is a question of his lacking the sympathy and support of other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the Front Government bench, I would remind him that almost to, a man they gave pledges of an identical character. The Minister of Agriculture gave a most emphatic pledge. I will not weary the House by going into all, but the Lord Privy Seal, who speaks with greater authority on these matters, said he would gladly do all he could to remove the grievances represented. The grievances referred to are those we are now discussing. The Financial Secretary, in the course of another communication, claimed that he had supported the case for the last four years in the House, and would continue to do so to the best of his ability. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replied that he was in favour of the restrictions being abolished and no man penalised on account of his savings. The Minister of Labour said:
I acknowledge the principle that a pension from the State was intended to secure
that the pensioner should be above the need of charity, and I am prepared to support it.
The Colonial Secretary said:
I am certainly in favour of a readjustment of pre-War Civil Service pensions so as to take into account the increase in the cost of living.
The Minister of Health promised to do all he could. He was instrumental, he said, in assisting similar persons in his corporation. And so on. I have an interminable list. I have here a clear majority of the Cabinet, but I would especially note the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who replied to the communications sent:
You are, of course, aware that the Resolution referred to in your letter which was passed in the House of Commons on 19th May, was moved officially on behalf of the Labour party. The party will, of course, do its best to set that the Government's Measure is consistent with the recorded opinions of the House. I shall do all that is possible to secure satisfactory legislation in connection with the matter.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman exchange some of those pledges he has got for some that I have got?

Major HORE-BELISHA: They ought all to be preserved upon the records of the House. These pledges are worth absolutely nothing. This Financial Resolution is worth absolutely nothing. I think the Committee ought to have no hesitation in rejecting it. The money proposed to be spent under the Resolution should form a fund for the relief of necessitous cases. In most necessitous cases the inflation being, as it is, about Id. on the shilling, is not going to get anybody out of the workhouse, and is not going to relieve any kind of distress. It is simply eyewash. I therefore suggest that the Committee should ignominiously reject this proposal so that the whole thing may be referred to a Committee, and if justice is going to be done, let it be done in accordance with the principles on which the House has already decided. Section 2 of the Act must be abolished in any proposals brought forward in connection with this Resolution, far that Section deals with the age limit and the means limit. It is indefensible to impose an age limit, because these men are drawing already from public funds, and they are bound either to go to the workhouse or to the guardians. They are bound to get
public money, and why should they not get public money which they have earned by virtue of their past services? Although what is suggested may involve some increase in the Estimate, it will not really involve any additional expenditure upon public funds. We might have an undertaking to abolish these iniquitous inquiries into a person's means. If a sick man receives eggs and milk he has to make a return of it, and he runs the risk of having his pension affected. Another Section defines what is meant by the expressions "married person," "widower" and "unmarried persons." The moment a child is over 16 the father or the mother correspondingly lose a portion of their pension, which is most unfair, and this could be remedied without any difficulty whatever. The expression "means" is defined in the case of a married person as the means of husband and wife. They may not be living together, and it would not involve very much increase if that harsh and immoral provision were removed altogether from the Act. [Interruption.]

Mr. WESTWOOD: I do not often interrupt, but I would like to ask you, Mr. Young, if it is in order for the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) to suggest, as he has done, that an hon. Member of this House is trying to make a fool of himself when, at the same time, the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) can make a fool of himself without trying?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member objects to a reference like that, he must not interrupt for the purpose of applying the same reference in return to the hon. Member.

Major HORE-BELISHA: For the first time in history a Socialist Government has the opportunity of carrying out something it professes, and if the Government now attempted to do justice in this case it would receive the support of every section of this House. It is a little bit tiring to have continually the excuse put forward from the Socialist back benches that they are not in a majority. On this occasion they have a majority, and they are failing to avail themselves of it. I have dealt with some of the anomalies perpetuated by this Act. There is one which particularly affects civil servants. I would like to point out that the
established men in the dockyards are getting less pension because they are based on the industrial bonus than the pre-War pensioners who get the benefit of this Act, and I hope my hon. Friend will look into this matter. I think this is one of the most pathetic situations which has ever occurred in the House of Commons. In the last Debate we had a speech from one of the Labour Whips the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Robertson), and I will conclude by reading the peroration of his speech made in the days before the present Government came into power, This is what he said:
Let us try to appreciate the feelings of these old pensioners in cases such as I have described. They have lingered just a little longer on the threshhold of eternity than their fellows. An increased pension cannot buy back their youth, cannot give the light of youth to their eyes, cannot bring back the lost cunning to their right hand, nor give elasticity to their step, but it will save their pride; it will save their independence, and not have them harried, as is too often the case with the aged poor, to the grave, when their way ought to be smoothed, and made more comfortable for them than it is at the present time. An increased pension—and I am hopeful that they will not have to wait much longer—would bring us a little nearer the ideal set up by one of our most humane poets for our aged people, when he said that they may be able to Sink to the grave with unperceived decay.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1923; col. 558, Vol. 164.]
Those were the words of one of the Labour Whips when he was introducing a Resolution which the Home Secretary described as the Official Resolution of the Labour party. To-day the Labour party has an opportunity of doing what the whole House desires it to do and what its own conscience expects it to perform.

Mr. MARLEY: I think this Committee and the country as a whole will regard with a great deal of cheerfulness this new consciousness and the new social spirit which has sprung up in this House. I am quite sure the whole country will be very glad to know that after all these years the whole House is agreed that something should be done for our old people. There are a considerable number of old teachers with pensions of £40 or £60 a year, and this only shows the miserable way in which governments and local authorities in the past treated people in pre-War days, because that amount of pension was not sufficient even in pre-War days. There are a great number of people who require
pensions far more urgently than those who have the means of £200 or £150. If we were to suggest that our aged people who have no pensions should have a larger allowance we should have a great deal more difficulty in getting it. I hope the day has gone by when those who have fought for these things in the Labour party will have to fight so strenuously in the future.

Captain BOWYER: Do not stop fighting to-day.

Mr. MARLEY: We have no intention of stopping the fight, but I want to know whether, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had offered to do this, and had said, "I shall require to increase the Super-tax by 2s. in the £," there would have been the same consensus of opinion among hon. Members opposite. Although I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary are doing all they could do for these old people, and all that the Committee expect them to do, they are doing better in the circumstances than any of their predecessors.

Captain BOWYER: If the hon. Member desires to know where he can get the money, I can tell him how to do it without touching the Super-tax. All the Government need to do is to keep on the McKenna Duties.

Mr. MARLEY: The hon. and gallant Member has suggested a remedy which would not be acceptable to hon. Members below the Gangway, and I think he is only throwing a bomb in his own camp to proceed in that way. There is no party in this House which desires to help the old people more than those who sit on these benches, either now or at any other time. I know hon. Members opposite c-in promise a good deal at election time, but we do not want this matter to become contentious.

Mr. PRINGLE: Agreed, agreed!

Mr. MARLEY: I know the hon. Member for Penistone would agree to almost anything if he got his own way.

Mr. PRINGLE: I thought you were with us.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. MARLEY: I am with you when you are right, but that is not very often. I admit this is a scanty Measure, and I hope in the next Budget the Chancellor of the
Exchequer will be able to take the assurances of hon. Members opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway that if necessity compels him to increase the Super-tax there will be no objection raised from those hon. Members. There have always been anomalies with regard to the pensions paid to the old people, and we have had far more serious cases than
these. Let me just give one illustration. I know it is not in order at the moment to mention it, but there are the widows of policemen who were in the force previous to 1919. Their husbands, unfortunately, died too soon or were born too early, and because of that the widows now have no pension whatever. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that this also is a matter which should be very seriously considered. Had these men been in the force in 1919 or later, or had they died since then, their widows would have had fairly substantial pensions, but now they have none. All these questions in regard to pensions and keeping our old people are a new sign of social consciousness, and we want it to go on growing. We hope to see the time when pensions will be considered, not only for salaried people, but for all workers in the country who have rendered long service. We hope that this expression of feeling in the House of Commons will be considered, and if the Chancellor can give way and extend these pensions, no one will be more pleased than those on these benches; but we welcome what he is able to do at the moment, and still more do we welcome the expressions from hon. Members opposite and below the Gangway. We hope that anything he can do when he has more funds available will he accepted by them in the same spirit.

Mr. L. THOMPSON: I want to say at the outset that it is a matter of great amazement to me to hear the pronouncement from the Government Bench with respect to their efforts to help in the amelioration of present-day needs, as compared with their pronouncements in the days of their irresponsibility. It will be within the memory, possibly, of a number of hon. Members, that as recently as the 16th May of last year, as has already been mentioned in various parts of the Committee, we listened with a degree of assurance to the Resolution that was moved by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. J. Robertson), and there was
agreement in all parts of the House that something of a definite nature should be done for these pre-War pensioners. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) in his ready acquiescence that we should support the Government in the present Resolution. I would rather associate myself with those other Members who are endeavouring to press the Government to do something of a more adequate nature for the pre-War pensioners. The whole substance of the reason why the Government do not intend to go further is that they say the money is not forthcoming, but might I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will find great difficulty in persuading either the House of Commons, or the electorate outside, or the pre-War pensioners, that such is the case? I was one of a number of Members of the House who tried a short while ago to press him to retain certain duties which have been referred to this afternoon.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: And you voted against your own proposals.

Mr. THOMPSON: The hon. Member may have an opportunity of making his statement later on, but I was one of those who pressed the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer to retain those Duties, and he assured us during his Budget speech that the time had come when he could do with out them. To-day we are pressing him to increase the pensions of these worthy pre-War pensioners, and the Financial Secretary tells us that the whole reason why he cannot do it that he has not the money. Yet a few weeks ago he sacrificed £3,000,000. I would remind the Committee that it was only yesterday that we pledged the country to a future ex-penditure of some £34,000,000, and we are told to-day that we cannot afford this. It reminds me of a certain building operation in which I was engaged some time ago, when we were spending many thousands of pounds. There was a proposal that we should make a slight increase on a certain item, and objection was taken to a sum of some £5 or £10. The architect, however, waved us aside and said, "It is too late in the day to talk about £5 or £10." I would say to the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to what they have done within the last
couple of months, that it is too late to say that they cannot increase the amount to this extent. We are not asking too much, but we do say it is inadequate to meet the needs of the pre-War pensioners. I am one of those Members on this side of the Committee who would press the Government to make further provision, and I support those who have spoken to that effect. We freely admit that certain concessions have been made, in regard to the removal of the permissive Clause and so on; but we do say that the age limit must be altered, and also the income limit, to meet the needs of the [...]Ire-War pensioners. I should like to say quite definitely and frankly that, if a Division is challenged on this Resolution, I should be one who would divide against the Government, and I hope that some considerable pressure will be brought to bear in order that at least we may have a pronouncement that will allay our fears and those of the people concerned.

Mr. FOOT: I want to submit only one point to those who are in charge of this Resolution. I think it would be a pity if we spent our time this afternoon in comparing the respective records of the different parties. I do not think it is any answer at all to the criticism that has been made to say that parties in past years have failed to perform the promises they made. All I can suggest to the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Marley) is that it is for him to set the older and orthodox party the better example, and I am bound to say that that example has not been set so far during the first three or four months. Our concern to-day is for these distressed and unhappy people who, I suppose, have been communicating with every Member of the House. During the last 18 months—and I expect the experience of every other Member has been the same as mine—I have been constantly receiving letters from these people, and have replied saying that proposals are to be brought in by the Government. I have myself put questions on the Order Paper, and a number of other Members have done so, asking when these proposals were to be introduced. Now that they have been introduced, I feel that I must have the further experience of having to communicate with many people who have written to me, telling them that they
do not come within he scope of these proposals at all.
I am glad that the hon. Member for North St. Pancras referred to the widows of those who have served the State in some capacity or other, who are faced at present with utter destitution. I can quite understand that, after the hints and suggestions that were thrown out from time to time, and the specific declarations that were made in some cases at the time of the Election, that it was intended to do something for these people, whose husbands received no superannuation or pension, and who themselves have nothing between them and destitution—I can quite understand that many of them have been living in the hope that, when these proposals came in, they would be wide enough and, I will not say generous, but considerate enough to include many who are in this distress. I know something of their distress, because I know that, when the pre-War pensioner has left his employment, he has gone down from the town in which he has been living into that part of the country where he can get a house at the lowest possible rent. He has shifted his surroundings, torn up his home by the roots, left his relations, and gone down and lived in the simplest possible circumstances, where he can get a cottage in a distant country hamlet for 1s., Is. 6d., or 2s. a week.
These people have been awaiting these proposals, and I am bound to say that when they were brought before the House only a week or two ago they caused an amount of disappointment greater than this House realises, and I should feel obliged to vote against this Resolution to-day were it not for one assurance that has been given by the Financial Secretary. I believe that it is our business to trust the Financial Secretary to carry out the promise which he himself has made, and the pledges which the Government have given. In the course of his speech he did admit that the performance was falling far short of the promise. Of course, the excuse is that when the Members of the Government made their promises last November they did not expect to be returned to power. It was like the excuse that Benedick gave when he said:
When I said I would die a bachelor I did not think I should live till I were married.
I think—although I do not ask for the open admission—that there are many above the Gangway who will be ready to admit in their hearts, at any rate, that, if it had been thought at that time, when the lists of questions were being submitted, that there was a likelihood of their taking upon themselves the responsibility of office within a few weeks, a little more care would have been exercised, to put it no higher.
It has been admitted to-day that there is a difference between the actual performances and the promises, but the Financial Secretary said this: He said, "Whilst admitting that there is that difference"—I am not quoting his words exactly, but I think that this is what he conveyed to the Committee—"we do not suggest that this is the full performance of our promise. We suggest that our promise could not be carried out at one stroke; we suggest that it could not be carried out in the course of two or three months." That is a perfectly reasonable plea. We cannot expect that these performances would be carried out within a limited time, and I am prepared to concede to the Government that they are entitled to time in which to turn round, to measure their resources, and to see that their promises might be carried out; but I want to get an assurance from the Financial Secretary, if he speaks later, as to what the intention of the Government is. Do they intend, during the present Session, to deal with the wider question? Do they intend, during the present Session, to bring in a Measure that will include within its scope the widows to whom reference has been made? Do they intend to bring in a Measure that will wipe out the means limit, and so carry out the express promises which they themselves have made? If that is their intention, and if we have an assurance that, subject to the ordinary accidents of Parliamentary life, some such Measure will be introduced during this present Session, and that the full weight of the Government will be behind its passage into law, I shall certainly support the Resolution, and shall be very glad to help the Government in the first step that is being taken.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I emphatically agree with the protests which have been made, and I feel that many would be made from even this quarter of the
Committee if we were shifted over to that side where we were last year. There is unanimity in the Committee in reality regarding this point. I have a clear recollection of that Resolution being unanimously adopted with very great heartiness. I have had put before me urgent appeals to sustain the obligation appertaining to this matter. I certainly feel it is an unfortunate procedure to try to excuse ourselves because other Members of the House have failed to keep their word of honour. I quite realise the difficulties of any man occupying office under present conditions, but at the same time, if I were in that position, I should feel that I was in honour bound to meet those obligations or else clear out of office. We cannot go on extenuating the situation by trying to say we are meeting the difficulties so far. The Government have the best opportunity it could possibly have under present conditions. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was told on every hand, "Go and bring in something far more substantial, and you will find it will go through the House with perfect case." That surely relieves the Government in this case from any exceptional difficulty. There is no fear of being defeated by the Liberals and no fear of being defeated by the Conservatives. No one could fail, in listening to the speeches from the other side of the Committee, to sympathise with the 1,400 people who are finding this thing to mean nothing for them. I certainly lose sight of all partyism. I see only the suffering. I know in my own heart and mind that I am committed to supporting these people. I appreciate the Government very highly and back them as a rule. I believe they are doing remarkably well, taking it all round. At the same time I believe in taking every case on its merits. If anyone puts up a case I can conscientiously support I am going to do it, and the Government in this instance has a magnificent opportunity, even for the second time, of saying: "We will come back to the House for the third time and show you that we will do better than we have ever done before."

Sir JAMES REMNANT: I believe the speech that has just been made will appeal to every Member of the Committee, and in dealing with this question the course the hon. Member took will have much more effect than the attempt to attack political opponents. He spoke correctly
when he said that, in his opinion, if the Cabinet took the full case into its hands and dealt with this subject in the sufficient and proper way in which the Committee feels it should be dealt with, it will be carried with practically no opposition whatsoever. I believe it is undisputed that over 500 Members of this House have not only agreed to support the case of the old pensioners, but they have followed the example in a great many cases of the leaders of the Cabinet to-day in saying they will not he content unless they get the maximum advantage for these old people. Why cannot the Government remove the present grievances? They have gone one step forward and made the granting of these pensions compulsory and not conditional, and they have made it permissible for these old pensioners to draw their pensions even if they happen to go to the Colonies. Why cannot they go a step further and remove the age and the means limit? I believe they would like to do so. They have certainly the support of the House in overwhelming volume. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been sitting on this side of the House when another Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought. forward such a suggestion as is now embodied in this Resolution. I can see him being very indignant, and saying, in a way I wish it was in my power to do, in the familiar way in which when he is really in earnest he clasps his hands together, "£300,000! What a sum for the greatest country in the world and for a Government which is always posing as trying to do what it can for the poor of the country to be able to find. £300,000 What is that amongst so many? "How many? Can the Financial Secretary tell us how many this £300,000 is to be divided amongst? I am sure in order to justify such a proposition being put before the House the right hon. Gentleman will be advised by the permanent officials of the Treasury who, when they want to show that the sums suggested will be amply sufficient for those amongst whom they are to be distributed, will put the number at the very lowest. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what number this £300,000 is to be divided amongst—the old pensioners of the Navy, the Army, civil servants, police and teachers?
Would it be 10,000, 30,000 or 50,000?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The hon. Baronet asks a perfectly fair question. The total number of pre-War pensioners affected is rather less than 100,000. They will all participate in the increase, and 85 to 90 per cent. of them will get the benefit of the highest percentage of the increase.

Sir J. REMNANT: 85 to 90 per cent. of the 100,000 will get benefit?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, that percentage will get the benefit of the largest percentage of the increase. I put it at 85 because I think that is a fair figure.

Sir J. REMNANT: They will not all get the same amount of advantage under this, I quite agree, but 70 per cent, 80 per cent. of 90 per cent. of 100,000! When the right hon. Gentleman—I admire him for his keenness on the subject—was defending the removal of those duties the other day that some of us were anxious to be retained, he took what was after all a fictitious amount of unemployment and divided it amongst the work given out. I can see him now, gesticulating and saying: "What a ridiculous fuss for this small amount of money per annum to be divided amongst this huge number." Let us be serious. Here is an enormous amount of distress amongst the old and deserving poor pensioners, and if the numbers that he has just given us are to be benefited under this £300,000, all I can say is, that it is a gratuitous insult to offer them in these days of distress such a petty, ridiculous, niggardly amount.

Mr. GRAHAM: I do not want the Committee to be under any misapprehension. The £300,000 that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is the normal increase in one year. We are giving in addition £335,000 this year retrospectively, plus £00,000 in respect of people brought in who reside outside these islands, in other words £600,000—exactly double the amount he mentioned.

Sir J. REMNANT: The suggestion is to increase the amount by £300,000 per annum. You are going to make it retrospective to 1st July, 1923. You cannot add it and make £600,000 per annum as the amount suggested by the Government unless you wish to oppose the Resolution on the ground that it is insignificant and nothing like what it ought to be, because these poor old people who have been
suffering intensely have now the opportunity under this Resolution of getting back pay from 1st July, 1923, in addition to a small advance. I do not wish to create any disagreement amongst us. Not only the House, but everyone outside, must have felt keen sympathy and appreciation with what the right hon. Gentleman said the other day, that nothing would give him greater pleasure and satisfaction than to feel that he had done something to help the conditions of the poor of the country. Why will he not remove these limitations, and if it will cost a little more money, find it? When he has been appealed to has he ever failed yet to find the money he has been asked to find He was asked for free railway fares to the constituencies. First of all third-class fares were suggested. It was then complained by some hon. Members that they could not work or have quietness and comfort on the way to and from their constituencies, and eventually they were given first-class fares free. [Interruption.] Any fool can interrupt.

Mr. SHORT: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to call me a fool?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The hon. Gentleman ought not to use that expression.

Sir J. REMNANT: I certainly withdraw that. I hope the hon. Member will forgive me; I did not apply it to him. I was only speaking generally. What I meant was that it takes no brains—it is so easy to interrupt—I will put it that way—and when you are not as gifted a speaker, for instance, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is very disconcerting to have an interruption made in the middle of one's speech. I certainly apologise to the hon. Member if it can be construed that I applied this epithet to him. In dealing with this serious subject we ought not to impart any ill feeling into it. The right. hon. Gentleman could find the money—there is no doubt whatever about that—if he really chose to do so. In recent years, we have had many suggestions put forward for money which, on the face of them, appeared to he ridiculous. I am not referring to the party opposite, or to any particular party. In recent years we have seen hundreds of thousands and even millions of pounds found at a moment's notice, when the Government were satis-
fled that the House really desired the money should be found. The McKenna Duties have been turned down. I am sorry that they have been turned down, because those Duties hurt nobody and benefited everybody

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot pursue that argument. He must keep his remarks to the subject of the Resolution.

Sir J. REMNANT: I was only using the illustration as an argument in regard to the finding of money. The House has turned down money when it had the power of dealing with it in the McKenna Duties, and I would like similar sums of money to be earmarked for the benefit of such a deserving body of people as these old pensioners, seeing that by doing that we are not hurting the industrial population. The Financial Secretary has undoubtedly disappointed us. I did hope, after the last Debate, that he was going to deal with the age limit and the means limit, and that when the Bill was eventually brought in, those questions would be dealt with. I trust that after consultation the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary will withdraw the age limit and, subsequently, introduce legislation by which all these restrictions could be removed. I will give a case in point. During the War the police pensioners were called up, and those who had earned their pensions were retained in the Service. They were not as physically fit as other men, and many of them broke down. These men unless they are 60 years of age are unable to get this increase in their pension. Why? These men are just as much entitled to the pension at 57 as the men who had not been called up. It would not cost the Government a great deal to remedy this pressing grievance.
No conditions are imposed in regard to pensions granted to-day. Why, therefore, are you trying to distinguish between the present-day man and those who have earned pre-War pensions? There is nothing in this Resolution which gives anything to the widows of the pre-September, 1918, pensioners. The widows of the pensioners who did not strike are distinguished from those who did strike. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully sympathetic, and, seeing that he has the support of over 500 Members of
this House who, if they were allowed to vote, would support him in every way they possibly could to remove this grievance, I hope he will give it the further consideration for which I plead. If he does remedy these defects, he will have the cordial support of every hon. Member.

Mr. LINFIELD: I have watched events in this House from the outside for a good many years, but I never dreamed that I should see the great Conservative party and the great Liberal party—still great, believe me—beseeching a Labour Government that they should observe their pledges, and that they should do justly by the pre-War pensioners, many of them exceedingly poor, and all deserving. I find myself in full agreement with almost everything that has been said from the opposite benches, excepting in one respect, when the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) said he wished lie were sitting on this side so that he might lead us.

Captain BOWYER: Only for once

Mr. LINFIELD: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member has a much better chance on that side. He need not trouble about the leadership of out side. He had better look at home. If we could get to know the minds of hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House, I feel confident that almost to a man they would be with us on this question. What is to prevent justice being done? I want to add my plea to the Chancellor of Exchequer that he should yield to the evident desire of the Committee. I can assure him that, if any Amendment is proposed that will not destroy the amount of good that will come to some people under this Resolution, I shall most certainly vote for it. In every part of the Committee there is a very sincere desire that nothing should be done to destroy whatever good there may be in the Resolution.
What is to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from setting op a Select Committee, if we give him this Vote unanimously? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary could see their way to give us a Committee, I have no doubt the Debate would come to an immediate end. We have
heard a great deal about cost. It is always difficult to extract anything from a Chancellor of the Exchequer. There
seems to be a cast-iron idea that you must not give way, because it is a sign of weakness. If the right hon. Gentleman gives way now, it will be a sign of strength and not of weakness. We are met with the cry of cost. I am quite aware that there are great demands on the Treasury. They have to build five cruisers and to keep them up afterwards. Demands are being made upon them day by day. This demand does not amount to much, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a certain margin in reserve for contingencies. In this case he has the advantage of having an almost unanimous House requesting that justice should be done.
Unless the right hon. Gentleman yields to this almost unanimous wish of the House, there is trouble in store for him. In yielding he would he having a little regard to the men behind him. If I could only disclose the feelings of hon. Members above the Gangway at the present time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it"]—and I could quote to them some of the speeches that they made and some of the pledges that they gave, I feel that instead of blessing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom we all respect, there would be a very different feeling in their minds. I feel sure that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give us a Select Committee he would meet the wishes of the House.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): I need hardly say that nothing in the world would give me greater pleasure than to respond to the very eloquent and pathetic appeals that have been made to me to extend the scope of this Financial Resolution. Probably, if I were in the position of hon. Members who have made those appeals I should have made a speech of a similar character, but, unfortunately, I have personal responsibilities which I cannot forget or ignore. I am sure the Committee will not misunderstand me when I say that the House of Commons in discussing any particular question is apt to regard that question as being disconnected and isolated, and they are not apt to consider the matter in relation to other correlated matters, especially in regard to the general financial arrangement. Of all the speeches which have been made to-day, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for
Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was the only one that took that comprehensive view and realised the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Hon. Members opposite, and indeed hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House, have said quite airily that there is no difficulty about finding the money. There would no difficulty in finding the money provided that this were the only purpose for which we had to find it. The hon. Member who has just sat down spoke of my surplus. A very old and respected friend sitting opposite urged me to remove the two still outstanding disqualifications of the Act of 1920, the age limit and the means limit. Will the Committee excuse me for saying that, not only in connection with this matter, but in connection with other matters, there is a great deal of loose talk about the means limit. Members use it in a different sense, but what my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have in their minds, I think, is this. One hon. Member below the Gangway spoke of the inquisitorial investigations that were made into the means of pensioners. We get the same complaints about pensioners who receive the old age pension. Unless you have a universal system, unless, in the case of these pre-War pensioners you are going to give a percentage increase, and that all a pre-War pensioner has to say is that he is a pre-War pensioner in order to get an increase of so much per cent. unless you remove all these restrictions, then some kind of inquiry is necessary. I am quite sure that in operations of this kind, and in the course of working the Old Age Pensions Act, the officials reponsible for making these inquiries conduct their investigations with the greatest delicacy, and consult in every way the feelings of the pensioners.

Mr. LINFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me if I read this one question—
The yearly value of capital, or voluntary assistance whether in money or in kind, including free maintenance.
May I add that the late Prime Minister expressed disapproval of this.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That, of course, under the regulations is regarded as income. "There is no difficulty about finding money. The Chancellor Of the Exche-
quer has £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 in hand," says the hon. Gentleman. "Why not spend it on abolishing the age-disqualification and the means disqualification." As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary told the Committee, that would cost up to £3,000,000. If that were the only claim which we had. I would devote my surplus to that. You can have it for that, if you want it, but if you do you will not have it for something else. The House of Commons knows that we are pledged to a great. many other things, all of which will cost. money. It is, I believe, the historic function of the House of Commons to discuss and to redress grievances, but I would like the House of Commons not to forget that the taxpayers themselves, who have to find the money, have grievances, and upon occasions like this, when the House of Commons is on its sympathetic side, when it is wanting to spend money, it forgets that a day will come when the bill for that will have to be paid.
The hon. and gallant Member opposite, who made one of the most energetic speeches in the course of this debate, and said that there was no difficulty about finding the money, was one of the deputation of members from that side of the House who waited upon me during the preparation of the Budget, and made a very powerful appeal to me to reduce the Income Tax. If hon. Members would refer to what has been said, and would look at the Amendments to the Finance Bill which have been demanded, knowing the amount left at the disposal of the State, they would see that the cost of these Amendments which I am going to be asked to make during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill would represent a reduction of taxation amounting to tens of millions a year. The House of Commons cannot have it both ways. As Chancellor of the Exchequer I must take both sides of the problem into consideration, and I must he convinced when a proposal involving expenditure is before the Committee, first of all that it is just and that it is necessary, and secondly that it can be afforded consistently with the full discharge of other obligations which I am bound to honour. That is my attitude in approaching this particular question. A great part of the debate this afternoon has been devoted to reciting pledges which have given by Members of Parliament who are now His
Majesty's Ministers. One hon. Member who, I am quite sure, in his constituency will get full credit for the speech which he has made this afternoon—

Major HORE-BELISHA: The Home Secretary got full credit for his promises.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not want to interfere with the hon. Member getting still further credit by defeating this Resolution in the Division Lobby. I waited to hear a recital of my pledges. They were not forthcoming. The hon. Member as well as other hon. Members charged the Government with a breach of the Resolution which was passed unanimously by this House 12 months ago.

Major HORE-BELISHA: On a point of Order: Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to attribute to a Member motives which are quite unfounded?

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot find in the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer anything which is out of order. May I remind the hon. and gallant Member that he must not stand up unless the Chancellor gives way.

Mr. SNOWDEN: When the terms of the Resolution were read out this afternoon, I was amazed to find—I have not
referred to it recently—how in the proposal which we are now submitting to the Committee we were carrying out to the very letter the declaration of this Resolution which I will read to the Committee:
That in the opinion of this House the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, are inadequate to meet the needs of the majority of pensioners—
Therefore, we are increasing the increases which were given under the 1920 Act—
and further legislation should be passed to augment the increases allowed by that Act and to amend other provisions of a limiting and restrictive character which have disqualified many deserving pensioners from receiving benefit under the Act.
I would remind the Committee that this Resolution does not say, "remove all limiting and restrictive provisions which disqualify." We are amending two of the provisions which can be carried into effect without costing an impossible sum. To do what hon. Members ask would cost something like £3,000,000 a year, and in that form it would be quite impossible.

Sir J. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear with me when I state that the estimate given at the time of the cost likely to be incurred under the 1920 Act was £2,500,000, whereas actually the cost was £1,000,000. The Treasury generally over-estimate in these matters.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid that that is not always so. I was in the House of Commons when the first Old Age Pensions proposals were put forward, and it was estimated that the cost would be something like £8,000,000, and it is now nearly three times that amount. The increases proposed in this Resolution have been described as niggardly. The 1920 Act was passed when prices were almost at their peak. That Act was passed by a Government which combined a large number of the Liberal party and the whole of the Conservative party. It had a majority of three or four hundred, and it could do exactly what it wished. At that time the cost of living stood at 155 per cent. over the pre-War figure. At that time the increases in the 1920 Act were considered to be sufficient to remove all the legitimate grievances of these pre-War pensioners. The position now is that the increases that were given in 1920 are far more valuable than they were in 1920, because the cost of living has fallen from 155 to about 71, and they are not only getting the advantage of the considerable reduction in the cost of living, and therefore a corresponding increase in the value of their pensions, but they are getting the increases that we are proposing under this Resolution.
7.0 P.M.
If in 1920 it had been necessary to do what we are doing now for these old age pensioners, they must have done so. The supporters of the Government then constituted almost the whole of the membership of the House of Commons. They had the largest majority of modern days. The pensioners have had that advantage since 1920, and they will have the additionl advantage of the benefits we are now proposing to give them. So much for the general points which have been raised in the
discussion. One speaker, including the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson), referred to some pledge or promise which had been given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury,
from which he had gathered that the Government were proposing this Resolution merely as a temporary measure, but that they hoped at some time to deal with the question of pre-War pensioners. One or two other hon. Members below the Gangway also said the same thing. I assume they were referring to a statement which he made when this matter was before the House a few weeks ago. What my hon. Friend had in mind was this: that we would take back that Resolution, and would consider the matter afresh in the light of what had been said in the Debate that afternoon, and that we might then he prepared to bring forward proposals which would be a little more comprehensive. My hon. Friend had in mind just those few points embodied in this Resolution, namely, the application to local authorities and
residence abroad. That is what he meant, and nothing else.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: This is what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury actually said:
… we thought it best to take the first step by increasing the percentages, and the other changes must form the subject of separate legislation."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1924; col.1874, Vol.173.]

Mr. SNOWDEN: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary tells me that is what he had in mind.

Mr. PRINGLE: He said that in his first speech. The promise referred to was made in that first speech; consequently, he could not have had in contemplation the two points mentioned.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I think I can clear up the matter very quickly. The truth is, representations had been made to us on the two points which emerged later in the Debate, namely, the residential qualification, and the application to the local authority. Those are the two points about which I gave a pledge later in that Debate, and they have been carried out. We also had in mind a very much wider Resolution raising means limits problems in old age pensions, and other subjects; but that is exactly what I intended, and it fully explains what the hon. and gallant Member has said.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I accept, of course, that that is what the hon. Member meant, but he said it in his very first opening speech of that day. He made it clear
that this was a first instalment, and that, later on, the Government intended to bring in fresh legislation.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am quite sure there must be some misunderstanding somewhere, because it was never the intention of the Government to deal with this matter again by further legislation. I am quite sure my hon. Friend must have had in mind the other legislation which the Government intends to introduce. May I say this, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon)? He raised a question regarding people with pensions or means, and said that single men, say, with more than £150 a year, would get no benefit under the provisions of this Resolution. There are two answers to that. These pre-War pensioners have no legal claim to an extension. These increased benefits have been given to them owing to the exceptional conditions created by the results of the War in regard to the cost of living and the depreciation of the value of money. In view of the fact that only a certain amount of money could be devoted in 1920 to that purpose, an increase was given to those people who stood most in need. That increase has not been given in the same way as the original pension was given, namely, as a right, but rather as an additional means to meet the high cost of living, in view of the condition of poverty in which many of these pre-War pensioners have been placed.
I do not deny that the condition of these people is deplorable. That may apply to numbers of them, but I would remind the right hon. Member that there are many other people, industrial workers, who have no pensions, but whose condition is just as bad. They have served the State, it is true not under the Government or under a public authority, but nevertheless they have been in the service of the community, and have just as strong a claim to be considered by the State, and to be provided for in their old age, as these more fortunate people who happen to have been in the service of the Government or of public authorities. If you are going to be unnecessarily generous, and give out of public funds assistance where it be needed, it will be putting an extra burden of taxation on people who are in no better position than the people we are assisting. We must take these facts into consideration. In
regard to the £150 limit, if we were dealing with those above that figure we should get into this dilemma: that many of the pre-War pensioners would be receiving a higher pension than post-War pensioners. It is quite evident that if we were to make further concession, we should not satisfy everyone. Nothing short of increased benefits, which would cost the sum of something like £3,000,000 a year, would satisfy the wishes of all the hon. Members of this House.

Captain BOWYER: Half-a-million would do it.

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, hon. Members on the benches below the Gangway want the abolition of the means limit altogether.

Captain BOWYER: The Financial Secretary clearly told the Committee that the abolition of the means limit within the terms of the Financial Resolution now on the Paper would cost just over £500,000.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is perfectly true; but much more has been demanded in the course of the Debate.

Captain BOWYER: Will you give us that?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. and gallant Member asks me if I will give that. No, I cannot do it, because, added to the £300,000 a year that the proposed increases will cost, it would bring the amount up to nearly £1,000,000 a. year. It tell the House of Commons frankly that we cannot afford that.

Sir J. REMNANT: It would not cost much this year.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That point has been raised over and over again, but it will be no relief to me next year. I have got to raise it next year. It might be a fortunate thing for my successor, providing I have a successor, that we are not undertaking this commitment. There is not likely to be much money above our requirements this year and next year. I have every sympathy with these people, and, if I could do it, it would be a great pleasure to me; but, in view of the commitments of the Government, and of what we hope to be able to do, we cannot in this particular case be as generous as we would
like to be. We are doing the best we can now. I do not know whether I am saying something I ought not to say, or not, but, at any rate, the Committee know that the Government intend to amend the Old Age Pensions Act to deal with the thrift disqualification. Well, I had hoped to be able to introduce that Bill before now, but the House knows the congested state of business. I shall be very much disappointed if I do not get an opportunity of introducing the Amendment soon after we reassemble after Whitsuntide. I cannot consider the question we have before us this afternoon without relation to that matter. The two have a very intimate bearing. One hon. Member quoted from a circular, which I believe has been sent to all Members, from the Teachers' Superannuation Society. I just looked at the circular when I received it this morning, and it struck me at the time that the great majority of the cases quoted in it—and in saying this I am not divulging any of the details of what I hope to submit to the House in the course of a week or two —would come under that Amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act, under which they would receive very considerable additional benefits. I want the Committee to remember that. I am sorry I cannot do more than is embodied in this Resolution, but I am dealing with the whole question of Old Age Pensions, and the necessitous poor of all degrees, and this is only the first step, though I admit it is only a small thing. I hope the. Committee will, therefore, accept it for what it is worth. I am quite sure there is no Member of the Committee who will take the responsibility of defeating it. Although it is not everything we desire, it will, I hope, give a substantial addition to the incomes of a not inconsiderable number of persons.

Mr. PRINGLE: There was one golden sentence in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I hope did not escape attention. The right hon. Gentleman said there had been a good deal of "loose talk" on this matter. I think he might have applied that, to the Labour candidates. It is a sentence which should be framed at the headquarters of the Labour party. [An HON. MEMBER "And Liberals as well?"] I shall be very glad to deal with the relative merits of the
Liberal party and the Labour party in due course. I am prepared to say that had it not been for the extravagant pledges given by Members of the Labour party at the last Election, the respective positions of the Liberal and Labour parties would have been altered in the present House of Commons. There were a good many pledges given about reinstating policemen, and other matters, and now we are dealing with the case of the pre-War pensioners. The pledges applied to almost every section and condition of society. Labour candidates made pledges without any sense of responsibility. It is quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in sympathy in that respect with many of his colleagues. I believe that not only at the last Election but on other occasions he has always addressed the electorate with a sense of responsibility. But that does not apply to his colleagues on the Front Bench, and I think the taunt which the right hon. Gentleman flung at my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha) did not come well from him.
The pledges of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench won them votes at the last Election, and it is in virtue of those pledges that they are now enjoying their salaries. I want the Committee to know what pledges they have given. We know exactly that the Home Secretary gave a pledge, not only on his own behalf, but on behalf of the Labour party. He said that the carrying out of the Resolution passed last year was the policy of the Labour party, and that the Labour party were committed to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon told us he was carrying out that Resolution to the letter, but there was nothing about the thrift disqualification in that Resolution. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have known if he had read the Debate that, that was a totally inaccurate explanation of what took place. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot)—I am sorry he is not here—devoted the greater part. of his speech in support of the Resolution to a demand for the removal of the thrift disqualification. This afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer took special pains to reinterpret the speech of the Financial Secretary. On the last occasion the Financial Secretary gave the House to understand that what the Government were then under-
taking was merely a first step, and that they intended to introduce further legislation dealing with various grievances. May I read exactly what the hon. Gentleman said—
I quite agree with hon. Members in not seeking to penalise thrift in any shape or form."—[OFFICIAL RETORT, 19th May, 1924; col. 1874, Vol. 173.]
That is the very question on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is adamant to-day. He reminded the House that, having regard to the fact that they had provided rather more than half-a-million sterling, they thought it best to take the first step by increasing the percentages, and the other changes must form the subject of separate legislation if at any time the Government find themselves able to embark on that course. Yes, that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has left the House. It is a very important matter that we should have it cleared up whether this is or is not merely a first step. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to make himself answerable for any further legislation except in respect of old age pensions, which is an entirely different thing. [Interruption.] If hon. Members above the Gangway instead of cheering will listen, they will understand better what I am endeavouring to convey.
A question was put to the Financial Secretary, what further legislation would be introduced? It was put by the hon.Member for Bodmin, and also by an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite quoted these words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that no further legislation is in contemplation in this matter, and consequently there is no hope that the present Government will at any time remove any further restrictions [Interruption.] I am prepared to give way to the 'Financial Secretary if he desires to correct me. If he is not willing to reply I make no reflection on him, for I quite recognise that the hon. Gentleman, not being a member of the Cabinet, may not desire to take upon himself the duty of making a declaration on the question. But why is he silent now? What is the position? Is this the first step or not? If it be the first step, I want to ask what other steps the Government have in contemplation. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr.
Thurtle) is prepared to accept Newman's theory "One step enough for me." He accepted it, I believe, with some difficulty about the cruisers. If the Financial Secretary be not able to deal with this question, three is the omniscient President of the Board of Trade, the man who initiates all the policies of the Government, a universal Whiteley! He told us the Government had all its unemployment schemes ready. Surely he is the man to put this right.
I remember the Prime Minister told us there was to be a new spirit and new methods. I have heard several such statements in my time in this House, but I distinguish nothing in the tone and accents of the present Chancellor of Exchequer which differ him from any of his predecessors. In fact, if anything, he is harder-hearted than the, right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). That right hon. Gentleman did not keep the purse strings tight enough. The great trouble with him was that he was too easy in the expenditure of public money when he was in office. The Chancellor of Exchequer is probably the hardest and closest watchdog there has ever been at the Treasury, and it is certainly a new spirit which we did not expect from the Labour party.
Reference has been made to a pledge which I gave. It is quite true I gave a pledge. It is one of the few things on which I did give a pledge. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you going to Keep it?"] When I have broken as many pledges as hon. Gentlemen on my left, they will be entitled to reproach me. The Resolution had been adopted by this House. It had been accepted by the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin), and I thought it was safe to assume from the declarations of the Labour Party welcoming it, that this matter would he dealt with in the spirit of the Resolution which the House of Commons accepted. But it has not been so dealt with. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has placed on the Order Paper a Resolution which makes it impossible for the House to extend it in any direction. If the right hon. Gentleman had framed the Resolution in general terms to the effect that provision should be made out of funds provided by Parliament for increasing the pensions of pre-War pensioners, on such a general Resolution it would have
been competent for any Member of the House to have moved later on in the Committee stage that certain restrictions and modifications should be introduced, and then the matter could, have been tested by the House of Commons as a whale.

Mr. LANSBURY: Do it, and let the House take the responsibility.

Mr. PRINGLE: The Government, instead of allowing that liberty to the House, has so introduced the Resolution, so narrowed and so restricted it, that the House is denied liberty to deal with this matter. No matter what the goodwill and the good intentions of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) may be he is absolutely powerless to obtain a vote of the House in this matter. He is made powerless by his own leaders.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The dictatorship of the proletariat.

Mr. PRINGLE: My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton with his usual good sense says that this is the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a foretaste of Moscow I suppose. [HON. MEMBERS: "Glasgow!"] In any case I do not think the proletariat will appreciate a form of dictatorship which prevents the representatives of the proletariat from voting the money which they desire to spend. That is a new form of dictatorship for which they will not be very thankful. The situation is that by this Resolution the hands of the House of Commons are being tied.

Mr. LANSBURY: Sit another day and bring in another Resolution.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will the Government agree?

Mr. LANSBURY: You can make them do it; you have more Members than we have.

Mr. PRINGLE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us what line the Government will take in that event. He has said that the Resolution is thrown out by the votes of hon. Members, then on their heads will rest the blame, so that the Government will decline to go a step further, even with the help of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. It is attempt to throw upon hon.
Members in this House the discredit for denying certain small concessions. It is raising the issue in an unfair form—a deliberately unfair form. It is put in such a form that, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha) might be misrepresented in his action in giving that vote. It might give an opportunity to the Socialist opponent of my hon. Friend to misrepresent him. [Laughter.] I do not see why it should be a matter for merriment. It is well known what is the usual practice of Socialist candidates. Now, however, they are in a position of responsibility, and they will have to stand or fall by the performances of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a cheap point at the expense of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) that he had been a deputation asking for the reduction of the Income Tax. I do not think many of us have asked for a reduction; I only went on one deputation with regard to the Budget, and that was with the object of increasing taxation. From that point of view, the Chancellor's reproach does not affect me, but there are other ways of getting the money.
The right hon. Gentleman complains, "I have so many pledges: I have pledged myself to getting rid of the means disqualification in connection with Old Age Pensions. I have pledged myself to mothers' pensions, and to ail these things." Did the right hon. Gentleman pledge himself to the five cruisers? I have a distinct recollection of the Prime Minister and other colleagues of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, protesting against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) to build cruisers to relieve unemployment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his own Division, made a weighty protest against it One of the first things he did after he became Chancellor was to assent to that expenditure, yet ho says now that lie must refuse the pre-War pensioners this slender pittance to, improve their conditions because he has his pledges to carry out If it were simply a matter of pledges, there is no difficulty in finding money for this purpose. What is the Chancellor of the Exchequer doing under this Resolution? He tells us that the annual
amount which would be payable to the pensioners is £300,000. Among how many pensioners is this sum to be divided? They number 100,000, which means an average of£3per head per annum.

Mr. GRAHAM: My hon. Friend is surely forgetting that they have already £11,000,000 per annum, and there is also the sum of £225,000.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am stating the annual benefit under this proposal. I know that in the Bill for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) was responsible they got £1000,000, but the Financial Secretary is not responsible for that Bill. I am asking what he is doing under this Resolution. I am pointing out that the amount which will annually come to the pensioners under this Resolution is £300,000, that the number of the pensioners is 100,000, so that what they are going to get is precisely £3 per head per annum. If I calculate it out in terms of the amount per week, as the Minister of Health did yesterday, it would not appear to be a very magnificent sum, We are often told that the reason why the present Government cannot do things is that they are only in office and not in power; that they are a minority Government, and that they cannot do the things which a majority Government can do. That does not apply in the present instance. So far as this matter is concerned, they could, if they chose, be a majority Government. Appeals have been made to them from every quarter of the Committee to make concessions in respect of the age limit which would not cost a great deal—not a full concession of the means limit but only within the limits already mentioned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Half a million!"] That is all we ask for, and the concession is comparatively small, because there are very few pensioners concerned, but they are a fairly important body and deserve consideration.
Requests have been made from all quarters of the House that this should be done, and the Government cannot say they are being prevented from doing it because the Liberals will not support them or because the Conservatives are obstructing them. They know that nearly every man and woman behind them would back that concession, but they
refuse to give it because the Treasury has got itself in, and for no other reason. It proves what we have always said, that the more things change the more they are the same. [Interruption.] I know there are certain proficient French scholars on my left, but I was considering the weaker brethren on my right. The Government have an opportunity of doing this, and they know they have the opportunity, but it is the Treasury which refuses all appeals of this character; that is the reason why the former Measure was limited in character. It is always the Treasury and it always will be the Treasury. Sometimes, however, a Chancellor of the Exchequer is more sympathetic and does not yield entirely to the Treasury officials, but we find here what I felt sure was going to be the case, namely, that Socialist Ministers are going to be more bureaucratic and more official than any other Ministers have ever been. As has been proved in every discussion in this House, every time a matter of administration comes up, bureaucracy is strengthened by the advent of Socialism, and consequently with the Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer we have the same spirit. I regret very much that on this occasion, when they had a real opportunity for conferring a boon upon a large class of the community to whom they have pledged themselves, and when they could have done so with the assent of all parties, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to take advantage of the opportunity.

Major KINDERSLEY: I often wondered before I came into this House why political economy was called political economy. Since I came here and especially during to-night's Debate. I think I have learned. The last Financial Resolution before us was concerned with the Government's building programme. I fancy in that programme the country will be committed to an ultimate expenditure of £2,400,000,000, and I can imagine the Minister of Health interviewing the Chancellor of the Exchequer and being asked, "How much is this going to cost?" The Minister of Health would say, "Oh, well, I suppose sooner or later it will cost the country £2,400,000,000." The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I fancy, would say. "That is all right, my dear boy, that is nothing." To-night the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us a lecture on cor-
related finance. I wonder when he and his colleague were discussing the housing scheme if they considered the question of its effects upon the finances of the country? Yet, when we come to a small amount of money which is required to do justice to a few deserving people, the Chancellor buttons up his pockets and says nothing can be done. Surely there never was such an economic Pharisee as a Chancellor of the Exchequer who strains at this gnat and swallows the camel of the housing scheme.
I wish to comment on one point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said these pensioners were not different from ordinary workers. That is absolutely untrue; everybody knows that the State servant, or the employé of a corporation, who receives a pension, gets a smaller income than the ordinary worker. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No!"] The pension is really deferred pay; this is a sum which these people have actually earned, which is just as much earned, or one may say saved, as the money which the worker puts aside out of his earnings. I maintain it is an absolutely false argument which the Chancellor has employed, on this subject. We heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that when the question of the means limit in connection with Old Age Pensions comes to be considered the removal of the means limit in connection with these pensions will be considered. The main thing left for consideration is this question of the age limit in connection with these pensions, and that limit affects a very small but not less deserving class and a class for whom I wish to plead, because I have come across many of them in my own constituency—both retired policemen and ex-R.I.C. men. I wish the Committee to consider the position of these men. They have been trained to no trade; the only work for which they are fit is work as messengers and in various positions of trust of that nature. At the present moment it is almost impossible to secure positions of that kind, because there are 100 men for every vacancy which occurs. I have been trying to place some of these men myself, and I know how difficult it is to do so, although they bear the very highest character. I plead with the Financial Secretary, and I ask him to plead with the Chancellor for this small concession in the matter of the age limit.
I also ask the Financial Secretary how much it is going to cost? The question has already been put to the Chancellor, and I observed that the right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary whispered together, but the Chancellor did not give a categorical answer. I now categorically ask him how much would the removal cost? I fancy it would be a very small sum, but it would remove a great injutice. If we leave the other question of the means limit to be considered later, and if the right hon. Gentleman makes this concession, he will do an act of justice to a deserving class.

Mr. MILLS: I have listened to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down and have endeavoured to follow him, but I gather that he is as clear as the mud on Epsom Downs. I am about to impart a secret to the Committee which, probably, it is just as well should be unloaded now as later on. When the Prime Minister met us after the defeat of the party opposite, he told us there were some things we should have to do as the first Labour Government. The first thing was to learn to listen, because if we pursued a policy of listening, we should be very much better able to reply to some of the nonsense that has been talked this afternoon. The point I desire to make clear to the Committee is that we were warned by both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister that the first Labour Government would be called upon to remedy so many of the anomalies of our social system, that if we attempted to do it in one year or two years we should bring about financial chaos. We on these benches are perfectly willing to be loyal to those on the Front Bench, but I do submit that in the case of these men—a diminishing body of men, who are dying off by the dozen every month—if I were the Government I would take the Members on the right and opposite at their word, and, if there are to be Supplementary Estimates, let them come.
We have waited here too long for this opportunity of doing a modicum of justice even to pre-War pensioners, because the more we recognise the injustice being done to pre-War pensioners, the more we begin to see that those men who had a certain income, increased by £10 to £15 for every year of service, will be providing a precedent
for the agricultural labourer—not for him to be asked to receive less because he is growing older, not to put the skilled engineer on the scrap-heap because he is over 40, as do many great firms, of which some hon. Members are directors. This will be a precedent that we can take to the organised and unorganised workers of this country, and ask them to contemplate, because, under this social system, you get out of society, not according to what you put into it, but according to your power to demand.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: This is a precedent of deliberately broken pledges.

Mr. MILLS: This House, which denounces gambling, but ballots every day—

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Who?

Mr. MILLS: You do.

Sir F. HALL: I never do.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): I must ask hon. Members to address the Chair.

Sir F. HALL: Withdraw! I have never said anything in this House that will lead anyone to believe that.

Mr. MILLS: I enter my name in the ballot for tickets for the Members' Gallery and the Ladies' Gallery every day—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going too far with his illustration, and must come nearer the question of pre-War pensioners.

Mr. MILLS: I am trying to make my point clear, that we gamble every day and yet denounce gambling. If we could produce the kind of legislation that those who formed the last Government actually contemplated, and compared it with the legislation that the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to put on the Table, then would be seen the difference between this simulated sympathy and the actual things to be achieved. I could only wish that could be done, but if a Labour Minister places anything on the Table of the House, if he quotes an official document, he is guilty of high treason. Therefore, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, reviewing the result of these things on the code of morality as it
applies to employers, that he should regard it as the expressed, and evidently sincere, desire of the House on the right and in front of us to grant this thing. And because the sum is small, and because it is a sum which, after all, is going to a body of men diminishing, as I said, every month, it will create a precedent that as the years go by, and, as the State more and more takes over the function of industry, will give to the agricultural worker, the engineering worker, the textile worker or the carpenter, that right to an increased remuneration, which these civil servants have had tip to the time they have retired, when they were able to take a pension. Why, there are men in Woolwich sacked by the late Government at the age of 60, to whom the only source of income has been unemployment benefit, out of which they have paid Inhabited House Duty, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been the first to remit. Those men throughout their lives have been attempting, out of wages, to buy the house that shelters them. They were engineers in Government employ, slung on the scrap heap at the age of 60. They also have a claim, and if Members are willing to go into the Lobby, to give a gesture to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think many of us would be prepared to support them, on the ground of the precedent it would create.

Mr. BALDWIN: May I point out to the Committee one very obvious possible result of the vote that may be taken on this occasion? We have to remember that no party is in a majority. We have to remember the state of business in this House. There is much in this Resolution which many Members of the House would like to see honoured, but, if the Resolution be beaten to-night, it is perfectly possible that we may get no Bill at all, either owing to the state of business, or owing to the position of the Government. I need not pursue that any further. The Government may go out, and there will be no Bill at all. They are committed, as our Government were committed, and as the House of Commons were committed, to do something for these pre-War pensioners. It is far better, in my view, that the Committee should do now what it can with a certainty, than that it should run what I believe to be the very real risk of losing the whole thing, for
the sake of pushing forward a particular claim of this or that class of men to-night. I think it is only fair to point out to the Committee this real difficulty. We all want to get something done, and we may to-night, by defeating this Resolution, defeat what we ourselves have in view, and we may, in the end, get nothing done before the House rises. I hope my hon. Friends behind me may see the force of that, and that we may get something done.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am very much obliged to the Leader of the Opposition for his intervention in the Debate, and I am quite sure the whole Committee will appreciate what he has said. This is the second day which has been devoted to the consideration of this question. The right hon. Gentleman has put the case before the Committee with more bluntness and directness than I felt disposed to do, but I do want the Committee to realise that the alternative is between accepting this Resolution, and getting no Resolution, and, therefore, no Bill. Then, may I add this to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition? I think this question has now been amply debated. If we do not come to a decision soon, it is very likely we shall not get the Resolution this side of Whitsuntide, and, therefore, the introduction of the Bill will be very considerably delayed, and, in view of the congested state of business, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, there may be a real danger that we may not get the Bill at all during this Session. Therefore, I do ask the Committee to allow this to proceed.

Sir H. CROFT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give any indication as to whether this is the final decision of the Government, or whether, during the course of the year, they are going to bring in fresh proposals?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean with regard to this particular question, or cognate questions?

Sir H. CROFT: The thrift disqualification.

Mr. SNOWDEN: As far as the Government is concerned, this is as far as we can go now, and we have no intention to supplement the Bill which
will arise out of this Resolution by any further legislation dealing with the position of these pre-War pensioners. I might add—as I do not think the hon. and gallant Member was here when I spoke—that a great many of those old pensioners will benefit very materially by the Bill we propose to introduce dealing with the amending of the old age pension.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: I do not very often trouble the House, and I have no intention, owing to the appeal made from both sides, of saying what I intended. I will merely satisfy myself with saying how disappointed I shall be in going to Ireland during the Recess with the message of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, more particularly as I know so well how the Royal Irish Constabulary have been treated, and are being treated under this particular Resolution. I am very sorry I cannot give them a better message when I go home. They are people who feel the pinch more than any other section. I know how difficult it is to deal with particular sections in a question of this kind, but if at any time the Chancellor of the Exchequer can do anything to alleviate their position, I am sure we shall all be very grateful. I do hope the time may come when he will be able to do more than he has promised to-day.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): 0: I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read a Second time."
8.0 P.M.
This is a very small Bill designed to ratify an international agreement. It is an uncontroversial Bill which was introduced by the last Government and would then have been passed into law but for the premature Dissolution. In view of the universal agreement and the fact that commercial Members of this House have said that they wish it to be passed, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading so that it may go upstairs to be discussed in Committee.

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: I agree entirely with the view of the President of the Board of Trade that this is an agreed Bill and one which the House might very well pass after very few minutes of consideration. The history of the Bill is that it has achieved agreement between the representatives of the interests concerned in this country and in other countries. In this country the representatives of the merchants and of the shipowners have had a series of meetings extending over a period of years, and the subject of the Bill, as expressed in the Schedule, has been discussed to an extent that is almost unprecedented in matters of the kind. The agreement which they have reached is represented in the detailed Clauses of and the Schedule to the Bill. But over and above that the Schedule represents, as is stated in the Preamble, an international draft convention. That draft convention has now been agreed to by a very large number of nations, and the convention to-day awaits signature at Brussels at the hands of the Belgian Government, who have acted as sponsors of this movement for the unification of maritime law. That being so, it is obvious that the Bill does not admit of consideration in detail for the purpose of criticising individual Clauses or attempting to amend this Clause or that. It represents, both from the point of view of ship and cargo, and from the point of view of different nations, a very nicely balanced consideration upon which each side, merchant and shipowner and each nation, has made concessions in order to get mutual reciprocity from the other side. It is, therefore, essentially, par excellence, an agreed Bill. From this side of the House we desire to welcome it. The Bill had its genesis under a Conservative Government. The present Government has recognised the good work of its predecessor and has brought the Bill forward to-day. The fact that Measures of this kind can, be introduced by one Government and carried forward without alteration or qualification by another Government, essentially opposite in character, is one of the best characteristics of our Parliamentary institutions.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of contributions towards the expenses incurred in connection with the provision of houses of the type and size mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, which are completed before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, not exceeding in the case of any house which is subject to special conditions. whether as regards rent or lettings or disposal or otherwise, a sum of nine pounds, or (if the house is situated in an agricultural parish in England or Wales, or in a rural area in Scotland) a sum of twelve pounds ten shillings, payable annually for a period not exceeding forty years, and in the case of any house which is not subject to such special conditions a sum of six pounds payable annually for a period not exceeding twenty years; and
(b) to make provision as to such special conditions and; in the case of houses which are subject to special conditions, to provide for the reduction or variation of the contributions in the event of any of the special conditions not being complied with; and
(c) to make provision in the absence of adequate arrangements for the necessary increase in the supply of labour and materials at reasonable prices for the withholding of contributions or the reduction or variation of contributions except in the case of houses completed before certain dates; and
(d) to make provision for the amendment of the financial provisions of the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, and for other purposes incidental thereto or connected therewith."

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): I beg to move, in line 18, after the word "in," to insert the words
certain contingencies, including contingencies which may arise from.
I wish to have this Amendment made in view of the Amendment to the Resolution to which the House agreed last night. If we were to proceed on the Resolution as it now stands, it would exclude certain contingencies under which we wanted to suspend the operation of the Act. I have submitted the words of my Amendment to the Mover of the Amendment last night and to the right hon. Member for Lady-wood (Mr. N. Chamberlain), and they
have agreed to it, and I therefore hope that the House will accept it. The effect of the Amendment is that our powers will not be confined to the shortage of labour and materials, but to leave them in the wider sense.

Sir J. SIMON: I have consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Sir G. McCrae) and others, and I quite agree with the Minister of Health that a change in phraseology such as he suggests will have the effect which was intended by those who moved the Amendment last night. The insertion of the words of the Amendment moved last night might have had a limiting effect, whereas our intention and the intention of the Committee was to secure an enlarging effect. The change in phraseology now suggested would secure the desired result.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: So far as I am concerned, and so far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, we see no reason to object to the change. I understand that the fear was expressed by certain authorities whom the right hon. Gentleman consulted on the application of the old legal principle

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius,

that the Resolution, as amended last night, might lead to a ridiculous result. In the circumstances, I offer no opposition to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution as amended."

Captain ELLIOT: I wish to raise a point which is of vital importance to the proper understanding of this Bill. We were discussing, last night, the position of the guarantee as it would arise, supposing that the local authorities for one reason or another exercised their undoubted power to suspend building at any time, as the Minister stated in a letter that they had power to do. I ask the attention of Liberal Members to a point which, so far, has been insufficiently appreciated. I will refer to a passage in a publication which, I am sure, the Minister will regard as in no way biased in favour of my party or, indeed, in favour of the capitalistic system of society
in general. I refer to the Monthly Circular of the Labour Research Department for the current month of June. The journal refers to the letter of the Minister of Health to the local authorities giving his guarantee that they may suspend building at any time for any reason, and on that account suffer no penalty or burden in the rates. The journal says:
This statement leaves a good deal to be further explained. In particular it is not clear how, under these proposals, the fifteen years' guaranteed programme suggested by the House-Building Committee is to be maintained if the local authorities are to be empowered to stop their programme at any time—unless the State is in that event to continue to bear the cost alone—and with the guaranteed programme is bound up the question of augmentation of labour.
The Minister of Health stated that he would have power to carry through a building programme under Section (4) of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1919. Let me read to him what the Section really points out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] This is a point of great importance to the local authorities of the country. [HON MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution, as amended, by Mr. Wheatley, Mr. William Adamson, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, Mr. James Stewart and Mr. Attorney-General.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

"to amend the financial provisions of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, and for other purposes incidental thereto or connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Monday, 16th June, and to be printed.[Bill 167.]

Orders of the Day — LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Captain Viscount CURZON: There are many points in this Bill which are of the greatest possible interest to those Members who sit for London constituencies,
of whom I happen to be one, and I would like at the outset to say that, whatever observations I may have to make on this Bill, I want it to be clearly understood that they are not really to be construed in any hostile sense, for, though I may wish to criticise in some respects the London County Council, I am a great believer in criticism. I believe that criticism may sometimes, even if Somewhat distasteful to those who have to endure it, in the end be quite useful. As I have no connection whatever with the London County Council, merely representing a large London constituency in this House, I feel able thereby to take the point of view, to a certain extent, of the man in the street. Hon. Members who now have studied the Bill will have seen the many and varied items which are in it, and I would refer them particularly to Part I of the Schedule to the Bill, in going through which hon. Members will notice that there are two columns, Column (7) and Column (9). The first is up to the 31st March, 1925, and the second column is for the succeeding six months, and if you want to get a correct version of the expenditure of the County Council in respect of the various items set forth, you have apparently to add those two columns together.
The first item in Part I of the Schedule refers to the "provision of stations and other works for the London Fire Brigade," and it amounts in all, adding the two columns together, to something over £25,000. I should like to hear something from the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir Cyril Cobb), who, I think, is going to reply for the Council, exactly what is being done with this £25,000. Are the Council going in for additional fire stations? I understood it was the policy of the Council to do away with a good many subsidiary stations and, as far as possible, to centralise their fire brigade services. If that be so, I should imagine there would be a set off against this expenditure in respect of stations no longer required, and possibly the sites of these stations may be very valuable, and the Council may be able to show something on the credit side in respect of them. Then we come to Item 3, which is in respect of "open spaces, parks, gardens, public walks and pleasure grounds. "That item is for £39,000, which strikes me as being a very large expenditure of money for the period
under review, namely, up to 30th September, 1925, and I hope the hon. Member, when he replies, will be able to tell us what really is the policy of the Council with reference to the "acquisition, laying-out and improvement of open spaces, parks, gardens, public walks and pleasure grounds." Are we to understand that the Council are, as far as possible, encouraging the provision of parks and open spaces, and, not only so, but that they are making due provision for games and amusements?
Representing, as I do, a large and very crowded London constituency, I am extremely keen that the poorer sections of the community should have every possible chance to indulge in games. The question of Sunday games, I am sure, every hon. Member representing a London constituency will agree, is a very debateable point and a burning point. There is no more pathetic spectacle to be obtained in London anywhere you like, where the week-end traffic proceeds along the highway, than the spectacle of the poorer members of the community looking at the motor cars that pass them on the road, carrying people with their golf clubs and tennis racquets, and wearing their flannels, going out to enjoy themselves for the week-end. I think that it is up to the county council—and I am sure we shall not look to them in vain—to see that they make every possible effort to provide the maximum opportunity for the poorer section of the community to indulge in games. Sunday games, of course, are a very debateable point, and, as representing a London constituency, I do not wish here and now to declare myself in favour of or against Sunday games, but I do say that it is very hard for the poorer sections of the community to watch this procession of people going, out to amuse themselves, and then, when they themselves go out to a public park or open space, to be warned off by the park keeper and told that Sunday games are not permitted. I do not take any sides in the matter, but I quite understand the point of view of the fellow who is met with a flat refusal and told to go home with his cricket bat and wickets or whatever he has brought with him. I hope the council will make every provision they can in respect of Sunday games.
The next item is in regard to expenditure in connection with housing. I am sorry the Minister of Health has so hurriedly gone off to dinner, or wherever he has gone, because here, apparently, is one of the legacies which he has left to the London County Council, amongst other bodies. If you add the two items here set forth together, they come to about £5,000,000 expenditure, which the London County Council has to face. I hope that that burden will not be unduly increased owing to the new Housing Bill, but I would like to know whether the Council have formed any estimate as to what that figure is likely to arrive at if the Housing Bill now under consideration is passed. I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Fulham will be able to give us any idea as to what additional expenditure the Council expect to have to take in respect of it, but it would be extraordinarily interesting to the House if he could give us some official figure on behalf of the County Council. Another question in regard to housing is this: This, apparently, is for "carrying out schemes, acquisition of lands, erection of dwellings, and other expenditure." A large part of the new housing schemes seem to me to suffer from one particular defect. It may not be a defect, but I have seen the view expressed, and I would like to express it to-night, and to obtain the views of the members of the County Council upon it.
New housing schemes are often undertaken as more or less glorified suburbs to existing great cities. I should like to ask the hon. Member for West Fulham, seeing the County Council have got, as I understand, a new housing scheme in the vicinity of Ilford—which is really a London suburb—are they taking steps for the future which suggest a great vision? Are they taking steps to transplant our population that requires new housing not to the suburbs but further afield, right out in the country, where the Council can have a chance, too, with the services? It will he a good thing if only we can take the new housing schemes further out, and not erect houses in the suburbs of a great city, so that in a few years afterwards we shall require another housing scheme. Take the people still further out. Have the Council the longer vision? Do they propose to go further afield, where cheaper land can be
obtained, and where you can instal the population under much more pleasant conditions?
The London County Council is probably the most important local authority in the whole of these islands, and one would like to know what really is their view in regard to these matters. There is, again, the question of transport. We have a Minister of Transport. After all this is largely a question of transport. The question of transport is a very important one. The Ministry of Transport is spending large sums of money, but I should like to know if the London County Council are in close touch—doubtless after the London Traffic Bill has gone through they will be in closer touch—with the Ministry, and whether as in this matter as in others they are looking ahead with real vision and a bread view of the future—not to to-morrow, or next week, or next year, but for 10, 15 or 20 years ahead.
Again, there is an item in respect of the Tramways and Improvement Acts, 1914-20, which is concerned with street widenings — Eltham Road and High Street; Old Street and Kingsland Road; Cable Street and Brook Street. That brings up the question of street widening. What is the London County Council policy in regard to street widening? We all know what the traffic congestion is today. What the state of affairs is going to be in two or three years' time baffles the imagination! As lately as last Monday there was a traffic block which extended from the Albert Gate to Piccadilly Circus. There was an absolutely solid, stationary, immobile mass of traffic. The taximeters on the taxi-cabs were speeding up, the people on the omnibuses were tearing their hair out in handfuls, and everybody was getting the wind up. I was looking at the matter from the point of view of the man in the street. What is the County Council's view in regard to the widening of the streets and other great arteries for traffic? It is all important. What really is the policy under which these widening schemes are to be undertaken, assuming that they are part and parcel of a great scheme? Presumably the County Council have a policy in regard to street widening.
The next item, No. 8, refers to the provision of asylums. Hon. Members will perhaps know that there is a very large
sum—about £400,000—put down for mental hospitals and other purposes. I should like the hon. Member for West Fulham to say what the policy of the council is in regard to asylums? We have sought to find out from various Government Departments some of this information, but the Government Departments have a way when they do not want to give an answer to questions to accomplish that end. The hon. Member for West Fulham can possibly answer some of these queries which we have put. What is really going on in these asylums to-day Are there ex-service men there, men suffering as a result of the War? Are they in London County Council asylums cheek-by-jowl with other patients? I should like to hear exactly what is being clone there, and this information will help us when we have our periodical encounters with the Ministry of Pensions and other Departments.
Item 12 deals with the new County Hall. Apparently, from what we read here in this Bill, we are going back to the foundations. It may be that next year there will be a very large item put down for continuing to deal with the foundations. I know what these foundations are! Some of us have been inside the County Hall and some of us have looked at it from the outside. Some think it is very magnificent; others who have been inside think it is a very wonderful building. What I want to know is, when are we really going to reach finality in relation to the County Hall? Perhaps the hon. Member for West Fulham or some other spokesman of the council can give us some sort of an idea. Also what has been the expenditure up to date and how much is going to be spent in the future? We have here a sum of —90,000 for the period ending 5th September, 1925. I trust the hon. Member will be able to reassure us that we are not to be let in for another vast expenditure of money, and, if we are, to let us know something as to the amount. Let us know to-night exactly! what expenditure we have to face, or what increase of rates, if any, for we should like to know.
The next item is in respect of Acts relating to tramways. The sum of —570,000 is estimated to be required for the year ending March, 1925, for construction, reconstruction and equipment of tramways, provision of buildings, power
stations and other purposes. Accompanying the Bill there is a table in which the London County Council set forth their outstanding debt as being practically £55,000,000. Could we have a short and clear statement as to what is the financial position of the tramway undertakings of the London County Council? I do not ask for this in any hostile sense. I take the view that the London tramways, however inconvenient they may be, are indispensable to our great city, and I do not believe we could possibly get on without them. I do not believe it is practical to suggest the instantaneous uprooting of all our tramways, but I would like to know what is the financial position of the London tramway undertakings. Are they really making money? I know we were assured last year that they were reducing the debt, but the figures do not show that the debt has been materially reduced. We want to be told quite distinctly whether the tramway undertakings are really making money or losing it.
Probably we shall be told that it is very unfair that the London County Council have to pay for the maintenance of the road for a certain space on either side of the rails, but those who use that argument should remember the extraordinary inconvenience they inflict upon other traffic using the streets, and that must be taken as a set off. I think it is true to say that the great bulk of the traffic, apart from trams, is motor driven. The trams are undoubtedly a great obstruction to motor traffic, and this should be got over in some way. I should like to know definitely what is the policy of the London County Council in reference to tramways. Are they definitely committed to further tramway extension, and is it their policy to extend the tramway system to their new housing scheme at Eltham. I want to know whether the Council contemplate an indefinite extension of the tramway system, or will they do what most of our great municipalities are doing, that is, make use of the more recent invention of the trackless trolley. Could they not supplement their present system by the adoption of such a scheme?
There is one other point I would like to put to the hon. Member for West Fulham. The tramway undertakings are only users of the streets in common with
other users, and I think they should show the same consideration to other users as they expect to be shown towards them. Has it ever been considered that when a tram is going along the street it is impossible to tell whether it is going to stop or not, and the only indication given is when you see people coming down the staircase, or when the conductor goes to collect the tickets, or passengers are on the step ready to get off while the car is moving. Hon. Members will realise that this is not only in the interests of motors, but also of lorry drivers, far whom, I am sure, they have every sympathy, because their job is much harder than the driving of any motor car or taxicab.
I would like those who manage the County Council tramways to bear in mind the difficulties of other traffic. A tramcar can stop quicker than other traffic, and it can stop whether the rails are wet or dry, and under all weather conditions it can stop more quickly than other traffic. Have the Tramways Committee ever considered the feasibility of having some sort of indicator to show what the tramcar is going to do, and to indicate whether it is going to stop or turn off? Two things which it is difficult to know about a tramcar are whether it is going straight on or whether it is going to turn, and it is difficult to know whether it is going to pull up or not. I would like to know if the County Council could consider fitting some sort of indicator which would give an indication to other traffic what the movements of the tramcars are likely to be. The next item I wish to deal with is Item 17 which is the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge and the provision of a temporary bridge.

Mr. THURTLE: May I point out that the Noble Lord appears to have omitted the item which deals with the provision of meter-testing plant.

Viscount CURZON: I do not intend to touch upon all the items, and, no doubt, the hon. Member opposite, being more interested in meter testing plant, will be able to put many questions to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham on that point and thus satisfy his thirst for information. The item I wish to deal with is one which must demand the consideration of every London Member, I
mean the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge. Most hon. Members who have studied this question will agree that the state of many of the bridges in London is almost one of complete chaos. There seems to be no sort of bridge policy for London. This is a matter which I should like to bring particularly to the notice of the Minister of Transport, who probably knows more about London traffic than any other hon. Member in this House. The bridge question of London is obviously thrown into chaos by the closing of Waterloo Bridge. I should not like to criticise the London County Council, who, perhaps have been the unfortunate victims of fate, but I do think their engineers and expert advisers might have given a little more warning to London generally of what was likely to happen to Waterloo Bridge. It seems to me extraordinary that the failure of this bridge can have come about so suddenly as it has without the engineers having been able to know something about it and to give due warning. Forty years ago this bridge was known to be defective, but things were allowed to go on, and, apparently, nothing was done, so far as the ordinary individual can see, until one fine day someone discovers that there is
crack in the bridge, which is getting larger, and a sort of switchback in the road, and we read paragraphs about omnibuses going for a trip over the switchback.
All of a sudden, in the dead of night, the minions of the County Council come along armed with red lamps and poles and trestles, and one finds oneself faced by an impassable barrier, not only to vehicular, but also to pedestrian traffic, which is, perhaps, the more important of the two. I do not offer any observations on that comparison, but this might almost be described as a mine sprung upon the citizens. We knew very little about it, but those of us who have been accustomed to use this artery of traffic are now compelled to suffer considerable inconvenience and discomfort. More than that, the tradespeople who own the small shops on the approaches of Waterloo Bridge on the South side have informed me that their business has gone, and that, in the one bumper year which they expected to have, when, on account of the British Empire Exhibition, it was hoped that numbers of oversea visitors and others would be arriving at Waterloo Station,
amongst others, and naturally would gravitate from there over the bridge to the Strand, they are doing no business at all. They have laid in large stocks, and there is nothing doing. I should like to ask the council, and also the Minister of Transport, have we a bridge policy for London? I have heard it said that it was proposed to construct a bridge in the neighbourhood of St, Paul's Cathedral, but could any more extraordinary proposition be put before the citizens of London? We have the Minister of Transport making circular roads to take all the north and south traffic outside—

Mr. B. SMITH: Where?

Viscount CURZON: That must be asked of the Minister. He can tell us where, but I am told that there are items on his Vote for circular roads, and yet here is the City Corporation coming along and positively seriously putting forward a proposal which, if successful, could only have the effect of attracting more traffic, and heavy and unwieldy traffic at that, through the heart of the most congested area in our great city, and which, furthermore, would take that traffic out over the river and land it somewhere by the Elephant and Castle. Anyone who knows anything about London traffic—and the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) will bear me out in this—knows that we do not want any complications by the Elephant and Castle. It is quite bad enough already. It is essential that the Government should step in here, in co-operation with all the authorities concerned, and examine the whole bridge question of London, with the idea of putting bridges across the river where they are really necessary. Southwark Bridge, which has been reconstructed within the last few years, is no sort of use to the citizens of London. If anyone doubts that, they have only to look at it. The traffic of London does not use it.

Mr. SHORT: Is the Noble Lord in order in discussing these provisions, which are not in this Bill at all? There is no reference to other bridges.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): The Noble Lord is entitled to draw comparisons.

Viscount CURZON: I can understand that the hon. Member for Wednesbury
(Mr. Short) is not interested in this question of bridges, but it is a very important one to London, and I am sure the hon. Member will allow me to proceed, because I am coming back to Waterloo Bridge in a minute. I am sure hon. Members will agree that, if we are going to spend money on bridges, we should be clear before we start as to what exactly our bridge policy is going to be. We know that a bridge is very much wanted at Lambeth; and hon. Members who travel along the river to that much more pleasant spot, Battersea., know that one of the things wanted is a bridge between Battersea and Fulham. Others who go a little further up the river will come to Wandsworth Bridge, which they will know wants strengthening and reconstructing to suit the present traffic. A little further up they will come to Putney Bridge, which is quite inadequate for the two lines of tramways, the several lines of motor omnibuses, and the huge amount of other traffic that goes over it.
Then we come to Hammersmith Bridge, which is now taking a strain that it was never designed to bear, and in that case it is quite obvious that a very grave risk is being run. The hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) will be able to say whether I am right or wrong, but I understand that this bridge is now taking a far greater weight than it, was designed to bear when it was first constructed. If it fails what is going to happen to all the traffic? I want to plead with the Minister, but I am sorry to see that he is now leaving the House. I hope, however, that all the authorities concerned—and I am sure that any hon. Member who has studied London traffic will agree with me—will consider this question. My hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham assures me that Hammersmith Bridge is all right, but I do hope that the various Members of Parliament and the local authorities who are responsible for these bridges of ours, including the City Corporation, which is responsible for the idea of a St Paul's Bridge, will go into the whole question on the broadest lines and will come to a general concensus of agreement with a view to. benefiting London traffic as a whole, and not any particular pet scheme. Let us take a large view, and think what is best for this great city, I hope that if that is done the county council will be able to go
ahead with Waterloo Bridge. I should like, however, to know exactly upon what they are going to spend this sum of £400,000. I think it will be of great interest to the House to know that. Let us also be told that we have a real bridge policy for London, and that they are going to contruct proper bridges at Charing Cross and Lambeth amongst other places.
There is only one other matter that I want to raise. This is the only time at which I can raise it, and I am sure I shall receive the sympathy of hon. Members opposite in doing so. It is in connection with the issue of motor licences. The London County Council is the authority which issues motor licences, but they take, relatively speaking, no trouble whatever to make their issue of licences as convenient as possible for those who wish to get them. Those who wish to get licences from the London County Council have to form up in a series of queues. You have to go through two or three queues in the course of the day to get a motor licence, and most, motor licences are, of course, renewed on the same day in the year. You form up in the morning, go to one pigeon-hole and get one sort of licence, and in the afternoon you go to another. You waste hours on it.

Mr. THURTLE: What about endorsed licences?

Viscount CURZON: I will tell you about those later. Could not better arrangements be made for the issue of licences, in order to try and avoid the extraordinary waste of time which is entailed upon those who have to apply for them, and in order to make it as convenient for them as possible. We all have to go on the same day every year for our carriage licences, and not only that, but I am sure hon. Members opposite will be shocked to hear that I was positively threatened by the police because. the county council had supplied me with a licence which had not their proper stamp upon it. I found a police officer looking at my car one day, and he suddenly found that the licence had not the postmark on it that it ought to have had, showing that it was issued by the council. All that happened was that I was threatened with a summons till I
could explain the matter and convince the officer that I was telling the truth. I then had to appeal to the council, who had sent the officer along, to change the licence. All these things cost money and it is a waste of time and very inconvenient. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he could do something to overhaul the Motor Licence Issue Department, and see they do not make the same mistake again. These questions are of great importance to London Members and to the public generally, and I hope we shall get a reasoned reply on behalf of the council to some of the points I have raised.

9.0 P.M.

Colonel VAUGHAM-MORGAN: My hon. and gallant Friend has reviewed at considerable detail several items in the Bill. I should like to refer to Item 20, in which the county council seeks powers ultimately to expend a large sum of money on Lambeth Bridge. I congratulate them on their decision to rebuild the bridge. We have had to put up for far too many years with the miserable, unsightly relic which suspends its ugly form between the banks of the Thames near the Palace of Westminster and the Palace of Lambeth. When it comes to street improvements, which are included in the total item of £68,000, on looking at the matter I have some misgivings as to the adequacy of the street improvements contemplated on the south side of the river, on the further side of Lambeth Bridge. I think better means of communication will be required, as this is the point at which the new bridge will cross the Thames. On that point I should like my hon. Friend to enlighten the House. On the large subject of bridges generally, there can be no sort of doubt that a consistent and all-embracing policy is required. In regard to that, I understand that the county council have recently considered and approved proposals for the setting up of a Commission which shall review this important subject. I understand that an invitation has been sent from the London County Council
to the City Corporation inviting
their co-operation, and even proposing that the City Corporation shall appoint half the members of the proposed Commission. Under all the circumstances I think that invitation is on a generous scale. Up to now unfortunately, if my information be
correct, the City Corporation have not seen their way to return any answer to that invitation. They have, I believe, followed the example of other distinguished people and referred the question to three Committees. I trust that will not be the end of the invitation, and I hope the county council, with the assistance of the Ministry of Transport, will secure the appointment of that Commission, to which this great question may with considerable advantage be referred for undoubtedly the problem of the bridges over the Thames is a big enough question to engage the attention of the county council and the City Corporation. At present our bridge authorities are two. We have the county council in charge of most of the bridges and the City Corporation in charge of some of them. It is said that two heads are better than one, and it used to be said, "Two minds with but a single thought." However, in this instance that does not apply, because, although the respective projects of the county council and the City Corporation are not necessarily rival projects, they emanate from two separate aspects of the same question. I hope the county council will succeed in bringing the City Corporation to take part in this Commission and that thetwo bodies, joined together in that way, will be able to bring to bear their united knowledge
on this great question. The dual Commission set up on that basis may also, we hope, have the additional advantage of persuading the City Corporation to put at the disposal of London as a whole its very substantial financial resources. There is an idea—I do not know what truth there is in it—that the Bridge House Estates, who enjoy a very substantial income if I am correctly informed, do not view with invariable favour the idea of spending their money on any bridge project which does not start from some point within the City boundaries. If they can be brought to view the matter from the joint standpoint of this Commission it may greatly facilitate and enlarge their view on a matter of that kind. If the invitation which has been extended to them does not shortly achieve success I would suggest that some other effort might be made to coax Gog and Magog from their fastness and they might be persuaded to embark on their state barge
and make a visit to Lambeth. They might be persuaded to discover Belvedere Road and to view the problem of the Thames from that foundation raft of which we have heard so much. I know the county council could not possibly emulate the Guildhall in its sumptuous hospitality and its dignified pageantry, but it would be an interesting experience for Gog and Magog to discover Belvedere Road and have a dish of tea with the county council. If something of that kind could be brought about it would be a very great advantage.
There are a variety of projects and possibly two aspects of this question of bridges. We have heard about St. Paul's Bridge and we know the county council is going to carry through Lambeth Bridge, but there are other questions also. I think there can be no doubt that London at present is severely under-bridged. We have not got nearly enough bridges, and that results in our over-working those we have. We see the present situation at Waterloo Bridge. Even Westminster Bridge, I am given to understand by those in a position to pronounce upon it with some authority, may not last very long. It will require attention if it goes on having to submit to its present severe strain. I believe when it was originally built it was designed to carry vehicles not exceeding seven tons. When the county council became the bridge authority they increased the weight to 15 tons, and I believe that weight is considerably exceeded many times every day, and possibly the life of Westminster Bridge itself will not be so very long unless something can be done to relieve it. It is not difficult to see where the means of relieving it should be constructed. What we want is a reconstructed Charing Cross Bridge first of all. Paul's Bridge can wait till we have half-a-dozen other bridges. Let us have a reconstructed Charing Cross Bridge to carry general traffic, even if we have to put up with trains being allowed to go across too, until such time as we can get rid of Charing Cross Station and rebuild it somewhere else nearer to our heart's desire, if further from where we are now.
There really is a need for a bridge to take the traffic from the eastern end of Aldwych. That also ought to ante-date any idea of Paul's Bridge, which I do not think anyone wants. Let us see that
it is postponed until far more important things have received the consideration they deserve. He also alluded to the question of bridges further west.
Here I want to enter a protest, and I hope the Minister of Transport will back me up. We really do want an early reconstruction of Wandsworth Bridge. The county council have decided, in their wisdom, that this should not be taken in hand until some day in the remote future, when their other bridge problems are nearer a solution, and when Putney Bridge has been widened. Since that decision, they have had to tackle the question of Waterloo Bridge. If we have to wait until all these things are dealt with, Wandsworth Bridge will go on deteriorating until it falls into the Thames. It does not stand much chance at the present time of falling into the river, because nothing heavier than five tons is allowed to go over it. Heavy motor cars, motor lorries or omnibuses do not pass over it. It is different to-day from the old days, when we had not so many factories. At the present time, the traffic which those factories require has to go round by Putney Bridge or by Battersea Bridge. That brings about congestion. Even Battersea Bridge is not regarded as safe. I do urge the county council that they should widen their view and adopt a more generous policy in regard to bridges, it particularly those that I have mentioned. I trust the Minister of Transport will back us up in that, because he knows the great necessity there is for bridges of the sort I have suggested, to take traffic and relieve the congestion on other arteries of traffic.

Sir CYRIL COBB: I will try to answer the various questions put to me by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon). I thank him for the considerate way in which he delivered his speech. He made one point as to the two columns in which our Money Bill is divided, columns 7 and 9, and asked for an explanation. It is not accurate to take the total sum arrived at by adding those two columns as representing what the county council wants for capital expenditure during the year. The Noble Lord will realise that by Statute we have to present this Bill to the House every year, and the Bill always runs from year to year up to the 31st March.
Any powers that we may get under this Money Bill which are due to end on the 31st March do actually end on that day, and if that money has not been spent it is no longer available for any purposes in a Money Bill of the London County Council. Inasmuch as this Bill does not come on yearly in this House until May or June, it is obvious that our powers of spending capital sums on various works actually in progress might come to an end by our having expended all the money in one particular item by the 31st March of any particular year. It is, therefore, essential that we should provide for an extra six months, extending from the 1st April to the 30th September in the same year in order that we may have sufficient money to carry on the actual work begun by the county council during the preceding twelve months. We never use up anything like the whole of the capital sums for which we get leave in this House every year on the occasion on which we present our Money Bill. I think that explains the position in regard to the two columns.

Viscount CURZON: What becomes of the unexpended balances?

Sir C. COBB: The unexpended balances are carried on for the same purposes to the next 12 months, subject to being re-voted by this House. I could give the figures to the Noble Lord for two or three years, but it is hardly worth while. The House will see, for instance, that if £2,000,000 out of £4,500,000 was not used in a particular year—that is, the monies sanctioned by this House for this particular purpose—the sanction for the use of that money has expired, and that money is carried on to the suceeding year. Further, I may say that it will not be necessary for us to go to the money market and borrow money this year for any purpose connected with our capital expenditure.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: What would be the position if you did not get this Bill?

Sir C. COBB: If we did not get our Bill by September we should not have any money to spend, that is, if we had exhausted all the money which is available to the 30th September and we had no other leave from this House for the purpose of capital expenditure, we should have no further power to spend. That has never happened.
The Noble Lord referred to the fire brigade stations. It is true that we have concentrated our fire brigade stations. Since we abandoned horse vehicles and adopted motor vehicles we have been able to concentrate our fire stations, and many former stations have been disused, with the result that credits have come in against the new expenditure for the motor stations. The capital expenditure in the Money Bill this year on this item will be devoted to the equipment of workshops for the motor vehicles which are now used in place of the old horse vehicles. The headquarters extension of workshops absorb £8,000 up to the 31st March, and another £6,000 up to September. We are also rebuilding and extending two very important stations, Euston Road station and Peckham Road station. Peckham Road station is a large one, but in the case of Euston Road station there is only a small capital expenditure. That accounts for the whole of the money with the exception of a small item of £1,500 for a motor-driven wagon.
The next point raised was in connection with the parks. I was asked, what is the policy with regard to the parks. I can only assure the Noble Lord that we are very anxious, and have been very anxious all the years that I have been connected with the London County Council, to obtain all the possible open spaces we can for the amusement and recreation of the people, and especially for the young people, and I think that everybody will admit that we have done a great deal in laying out our parks. I do not think the criticism against our Parks Committee is at all justified. We have done everything we can to encourage amusements, and wherever possible we have acquired parks and open spaces. The Noble Lord will be interested to hear that in Battersea, for instance—we are very anxious to please the children—we have now put in an item for completing a paddling pond. We have also been providing paddling ponds in other parks. We have got no fewer than three paddling ponds. We have several open-air swimming baths at Peckham Rye and Southwark Park. We have hard tennis courts in various places. We have a new refreshment place and we have the provision of dressing accommodation on Hampstead Heath. All those items show that we are carrying out the principles
which are laid down for us by the Noble Lord.
I come now to the much more important point of housing. This year we are asking for £2,000,000 of new money for the purpose of housing. That sum is not meant to meet any new provision which may be brought forward in this House and passed at the instance of the present Government, because it is impossible for us to provide for that until we know a great deal more about the future of the projects of the Minister of Health. We are now simply developing the existing housing estates. We put aside a considerable amount of money for the purpose of slum clearance, and building houses to take the place, of the slum houses which are cleared off. We put aside £1,250,000 for the purpose of acquiring and developing new sites. The Noble Lord has raised an interesting point as to how far we should carry out people who want rehousing outside the County of London.
We have had no scheme which carries the London people very far outside the existing administrative County of London, and I think that the Noble Lord himself will admit the great difficulty which there is there, principally in connection with the transit question. It is not reasonable to ask people who have been in the habit of living in London near their work, and who have to move because of slum clearances, to move 20 or 25 miles out of London and have to come into London every day for their work, and occupy a long time in doing so. Our policy therefore has been rather to confine the purchase of housing estates to somewhere in the neighbourhood of the Administrative County of London, so that it may be possible for those who have to live on them to reach them in a reasonable time without, too much expenditure of their leisure in going to and returnin4 from work.
On the question of street widening, the Piccadilly improvement is the main item. We have been obliged to put aside £126,000 every year for some four years for the falling in of certain properties. We shall have to provide that sum every year in order to hand it over to the Office of Woods when the time comes. The total amount that has been set aside for contribution to local improvements is £400,000, and another £300,000 for miscellaneous improvements, making an
additional £700,000. Then there is the Eltham Road, and the High Street, Eltham, if that is finished during the coming year, as we are very hopeful it will be. There is another £8,000 there, so that we are not leaving this part of our work in arrears.
The question of the County Hall is raised every year. The exact position is that the expenditure up to date has been £3,060,000, and the estimated total cost of the building when fully finished, including furniture, is £4,083,000. We are asking this year for £88,000. Some of that is for the completion of the raft which is necessary, I am told by the engineers, for the future completion of the new wing. The other portion of the £88,000 is to go towards the actual payment for the completion of the County Hall as it stands now. Whether when we come to this House next year we shall actually ask for the money to build the new block remains to be seen. The County Council election next March may have a considerable effect upon the policy of the council. It may be found necessary, in view of the increase, if that happens, of unemployment that we should find work in this way. It will be economical for us if we are able to build our new block in order to house our whole staff. At present we are housing something like 800 people outside the existing Hall, on the other side of Westminister Bridge. Two hundred of those are housed in the old County Hall and 600 in the old Education Office on the Embankment.
The House will be interested to hear that we have just disposed of the old County Hall, so that within a short time we shall have to find accommodation which probably we shall be able to get in the existing County Hall. We have got quite a decent rent for the old County Hall, a very much better one than the Government offered when they were biting at it. The actual charge to the Council of the old education offices at the present moment is £9,000, but it is only a book transaction. The actual cost of running the new County Hall is £100,000 a year, including everything except capital charges, but since we have been in the new County Hall we have saved £60,000 in rents from various offices all over London, where we had formerly
to house our staff. That £60,000 is £60,000 pre-War, and the £100,000 is post-War. So that, really, we have saved a considerable amount of money by getting rid of the old odds and ends of buildings, where we were obliged in the old days to house our staff.

Sir F. HALL: Is that after allowing for interest on the cost of the new County Hall?

Sir C. COBB: I should not like to state there is actually a saving. I am comparing the cost of the old County Hall and the r old buildings on a pre-War basis, with what it actually costs now to run the new County Hall. The figures, of course, are not really comparable. I only give them as an instance, because it is often brought up against us that the new County Hall is very much more expensive to run than the old arrangement. You have in the figures to take into account the difference between pre-War and post-War cost in order to arrive at a comparable figure. The tramway question is a complicated one, but I assure the House that this year, at any rate, if it is any consolation, we are not going to have any new tramway schemes, because they have all failed to get through. There is only one, namely, £45,000, in order to run our trams over Southwark Bridge, when it is completed. That will enable the workers on the South side of London to be deposited on the North side, which will be of great convenience to them. The actual expenditure this year on capital account is to meet the charger for the new turbo-generator at Greenwich, for the new coal-bunkers at the Greenwich station, and the reconstruction of the Elephant and Castle sub-station.
We want a good many new tramcars built. I have received a good many complaints from my constituents about the ricketty nature of the tramcars, and the great noise they make as they run past their houses. Those defects can, to some extent, be obviated by replacing the old cars by new ones. I think the House will agree it is a good thing that the London County Council should scrap its old and inefficient cars for new ones. That brings me to the very important point, of how far it is true to say that tramways are a paying concern. That entirely depends upon whether you want
to take the tramcar system of the London County Council and treat it as you would treat an ordinary business undertaking. You cannot do that. The tramcar system of the London County Council is obliged to pay interest and a considerable amount of money towards debt redemption every year. An ordinary business company does not do that. If you invest your money in a company, you do not get part of your capital back every year; but in the way in which the London County Council tramways are managed they are paying off capital, and they are paying interest on the borrowed capital, every year.
The amount of money which they might have paid from the beginning if they had been an ordinary commercial company would have been very considerable—something like £7,000,000 would have been paid by way of dividends, which has actually gone to the redemption of debt and in the payment of interest, but very largely the redemption of debt. This would not have happened if it had been a private company. Therefore, though it is true to say that during three years a considerable sum of money had to be provided out of the rates for the payment of the deficit on tramway accounts, that deficit would never have occurred in those three years, and dividends would have been paid, though smaller ones, if the tramway system had been run as an ordinary commercial company. Therefore, it is true to say that the tramways are paying their way, and by 1938 there will be only £2,000,000 left to pay off. Some people say we should scrap them, though I have not heard that said to-night. If we did scrap them, we should still have to go on paying off our debt, but without any income from the tramways to do it with, and therefore the burden would fail on the ratepayers. Moreover, if we scrap the tramways something would have to be put in their place.
The next point was the question of Waterloo Bridge. This morning I had an opportunity of looking at the position of Waterloo Bridge as it is to-day. The Noble. Lord the Member for South Battersea is quite right in saying, that for a great number of years Waterloo Bridge has been considered to be in a somewhat unsafe condition. In 1880, when the Metropolitan Board of Works took over a good many of the bridges of London, they made an examination of
Waterloo Bridge, especially of its foundations, and it was then ascertained that the bridge, as a matter of fact, rises and falls with the tide. That is owing to the nature of its foundations. In 1880 the Metropolitan Board of Works strengthened the bridge by putting concrete blocks around the basic piers at a cost of £62,000, and for a time there was no further danger in connection with the bridge. It was not until late last autumn that the engineers, who were looking after the bridge, detected a tendency in some of the piers to sink, particularly in one pier, the fourth pier of the Surrey side. This developed very distinct symptoms of sinking into the bed of the river. It has been suggested that we were too slow in warning the public about the danger of this bridge. It is no earthly use warning the public about the danger of a bridge unless you are going promptly to do something, and our engineer, having consulted with the engineers who are au fait with the bridges of the Thames, came to the conclusion that it was better for the time being to try what might be called a minor surgical operation on the bridge before they definitely declared the bridge was unsafe for traffic. It has also to be remembered that it is not the weight of the traffic on the bridge or, indeed, the, general weight of traffic on all bridges that wears them out. It is the actual weight of the bridge itself. The actual weight on one of the piers of Waterloo Bridge is 11,000 tons. The actual weight of the traffic at the maximum is only 500 tons. Therefore it was the actual weight of the bridge that was causing the trouble. The weight of the bridge was getting too heavy for the foundations, and the effective life of the foundations of the bridge was coming to an end. The engineers therefore decided that the best way to doctor the bridge was to pump concrete into the foundations and see if that would stop the particular pier gradually dropping into the bed of the river. Unfortunately it was found, after that had been tried, that the pier was still sinking. We had a further consultation, and it was decided then to drive piles into the basis of the arches of the bridge to see whether that would stop the gradualsinking of this particular pier. That again proved to be a failure and the bridge continued to sink. There was only one thing to do when that event happened. It was to relieve the actual
weight on the bridge itself. We had to take something off the 11,000 tons which was weighing on this particular pier. In order to do that it was essential to close the bridge. If we had taken this matter to the Highways Committee of the London County Council and asked what was to be done we should have had a very great controversy, not only in the council itself but outside, as to what ought to be done and probably there would have been a great deal more delay in closing the bridge than there was actually in connection with the procedure adopted by the council. When we knew what was the real cause of the particular pier sinking we immediately closed the bridge. Since then something like 1,450 tons have been taken off the pressure on that particular pier. As soon as 500 or 600 tons had been taken off the pier ceased to sink, thus proving that the engineers were right in their surmise. After having performed two minor operations—the pumping of concrete and the driving in of piles—their third effort proved that it was the actual weight of the pier itself that was causing the trouble.
To-day I went over the side of the bridge to see the condition of the enormous stones which formed part of the arch near the pier, and one could see that these huge stones—part of the bridge be it remembered—were themselves being crushed by the actual weight, and large pieces of the stone had fallen. In order to prevent any accident happening to barges below, where the bridge was being shored up, the bridge has been actually tied together so as to prevent the stones being driven down by the actual weight of the bridge and falling into the river. With regard to the possibility of reopening the bridge, the engineers have informed us that within three or four weeks it will be possible to reconstruct the 140 feet taken out of the centre of the bridge and then a temporary roadway for pedestrian traffic will be provided. Two months after that it may be possible to reopen the bridge for the purposes of vehicular traffic. Meanwhile the actual archway will be shored up and piles are being driven down into the river right in the centre of the archway. After that has been propped up it will be possible for traffic to be resumed, pending the construction of a temporary bridge.
With regard to the other bridges in London, I can only say that I entirely agree with hon. Members who have spoken on this subject. We must have a general commission of some kind, on which everybody interested sits, to consider the whole question of the bridges across the Thames. It is no good talking about Putney, or Wandsworth, or Lambeth, or St. Paul's or Charing Cross bridges. The whole thing must be treated as one problem. It is the problem of the London traffic, and that problem will have to be considered in connection with the whole question of the roads and streets of London. I hope we shall get the City, the Minister for Transport and others interested to come together and hammer out a proper scheme for the bridges of London.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Is anything to be done with regard to Lambeth Bridge and its approaches?

Sir C. COBB: We have put in our Money Bill this year a certain amount for Lambeth Bridge. The work will be carried out I hope during the year, and next year we shall come to this House for money for the approaches. We do not propose this year to make any new approaches in connection with that bridge, and, therefore, we have not asked for any money for the purpose.

Sir F. WISE: The hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) will forgive me if I ask one or two questions with regard to housing. It states in Part I of the Schedule there is to be expenditure for carrying out schemes for the acquisition of land and the erection of dwellings. In Column 7 the amount is put down as £3,689,900. In Column 9 there is an item of £1,412,500. I understood the hon. Member to say that the extra expenditure this year will be £2,000,000. I should like to ask where the acquisition of this land is to take place, and if it is to be extra land in the Ilford and Becontree areas. If so, I should like to know whether he will carefully consider the new Housing Bill and what number of new houses is going to be put in this new area. We have a tremendous area there already with a very large number of London County Council houses, and I feel, if the Housing Bill goes through, the rents will be on a much lower scale than the rent which is being paid for
the houses already built. Therefore you will have to bring down the rent of the present houses to a rent in comparison with that of the new houses to be built, and that will mean a very large depreciation of house property in that area. I also desire to know who are to live in these houses? Are ex-service men to get a preference, or are any special persons to get a preference? Further, if the new houses are to be in this area, as I anticipate, I hope careful consideration will be given to the problem of the traffic between Ilford and Liverpool Street or between Becontree and Liverpool Street. We have the peak load between 8 and 9.30 in the morning and again between 6 and 8 at night, and in those periods we find from 18 to 20 people in a carriage. If more houses are to be erected in that area this problem requires careful consideration. I know the Minister of Transport realises the seriousness of the situation and at present the overcrowding is such that it is more than the ordinary person can bear.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I should like to say how grateful we are to the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) for the very explicit manner in which he has answered the questions gut by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon). Those who have any knowledge of the work of the London County Council know how carefully everything is gone through by its committees in regard to estimates before they are brought up. Notwithstanding that, fact, there are certain points upon which some of us do not see eye to eye with the London County Council. First of all there is the proposal for increasing the tramways of London. I am glad to find that Parliament in its wisdom decided that it was inadvisable to allow extensions of tramways through London. I am all for linking up, provided the nearest possible way is taken for linking up and that it does not interfere with the general traffic, but I am opposed to running tramways along Holborn because I am certain it would further congest traffic in London as a whole. The hon. Member referred to the financial position of the tramways and indicated that there has been a profit or a return on capital up to the present of £7,000,000. When the hon. Gentleman
says that in the event of it being a private undertaking this money would not be utilised in the maner in which it is utilised, I quite agree, but he must not overlook the fact that you have to borrow the money to construct your tramways just the same as if it were a private undertaking. Furthermore, this is debenture stock—trustee stock—and if you are using up your principal you must do one of two things. You must either replace your principal or you must cancel the amount of the debenture stock which is not required.
I do not wish my hon. Friend to think that we are to be misled into the idea that the tramways themselves at the present day are a paying proposition. The money for the construction of the tramways is borrowed on the 25-year basis. If the life of that tramway is 25 years the proportion of 4 per cent. which has to be reduced, according to the manner in which the money is borrowed, has no principal to show in return unless it is utilised for the construction of new tramways. I think we are all agreed that the time has passed when the tramways should be further increased in London. The hon. Gentleman said in the near future the tramways were to be taken over Southwark Bridge. If one goes to the Surrey side of Southwark Bridge at the present time one finds during the rush hours a big queue waiting even in the most inclement weather and no shelter provided for them. I cannot help thinking that the County Council might take cognisance of that fact and make a temporary shelter.

Mr. SNELL: It is not a question of the London County Council, but of the Commissioner of Police. We have not permission.

Sir F. HALL: I am perfectly aware of the fact. At one time I knew as much about the tramway authority as my hon. Friend opposite, and, for his information, may I tell him that we had these difficulties with regard to providing shelters on the Embankment, and it was only by a great deal of trouble and perseverance that we were enabled to get them. I hope the London County Council will make every endeavour to provide that accommodation which I am sure will be appreciated. I was glad to learn from the hon. Member for West Fulham that
he is in favour of a Commission with regard to the bridges to go fully into the matter. I hope it is not a question of spending the money first and making inquiries afterwards or of committing themselves to large expenditure on approaches to a contemplated bridge—I mean the St. Paul's Bridge.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that has anything to do with this Bill. It is a matter for the City Corporation, not the London County Council.

Sir F. HALL: It is a question for the Bridges Committee of the City Corporation but nevertheless, the London County Council have agreed to expend a considerable sum, in the event of the bridge being constructed, towards the approaches for the bridge. If that be the case, I venture to suggest that all considerations should be carefully weighed before the County Council agree to any contribution towards that bridge, because I am of opinion that, instead of helping the traffic in the way that is required, it would, in many cases, dislocate that traffic.
Then, with regard to Waterloo Bridge, the hon. Gentleman has told us that examinations were made, and it was found in the fall of last year that there was something wrong with the bridge. I am glad to hear the explanations that have been given to-night, because there have been many statemnts made intimating that the surgical operation, to which my hon. Friend referred, that was carried out by the engineers of the London County Council did not meet with the approval of many eminent engineers. But we can all understand that, never mind how eminent an engineer or engineers may happen to be, they may not always agree one with another. It has been stated that if there had been alterations made with regard to the foundation in a different manner from those that have been carried put by the engineers who had it in charge, a very considerable
saving would have been made in the large amount that will have to be expended.
With regard to Westminster Bridge, I am glad to hear that the feeling of danger is allayed, because, if one pier can carry 11,000 tons, we need not be worried by seeing a larger number of trams crossing the bridge at one time. I am one of those who appreciate entirely the enormous amount of work that is carried out by the London County Council. I know the attention they give to all minute points that come before them, and I think London, as a whole, should congratulate itself on the excellent work that is put in hand, and, as far as we are concerned, I am sure this House will do their best to assist the London County Council in carrying out the enormous tasks with which they are faced.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Kennedy.]

Mr. E. BROWN: May I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion the Adjournment, in order that we may get the Second Reading of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (No. 2) Bill to-night? We have an hour to spare, and it is a matter of very great importance to landlords and tenants to know where they are to be. My postbag is full of letters from all over the country. It would be a great advantage to the whole community to know where it was with regard to this vexed question, which affects millions of people.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Ten o'Clock.